Between History writing and Political of Memory Analysis
Every effort to reveal the mystery of history is almost always invites controversy. For, the mystery of history is itself ambivalent attitude to leave. On one side there is a tendency to want to know the changing, but on the other hand, there is doubt want to know whether the desire can take pride in it.
Self-doubt that comes from a condition that an event or episode of history or covered called mystery because the impressions-historical impression that abandoned - any shape - is not sufficient as a material reconstruction of the past. That is why people tend to accept the historical narratives that have become a kind of "general agreement", but still not able to kill, if not maintain, enticing you want to know that. It is not surprising, the emergence of the efforts to reveal the mystery of history with menyodorkan "new facts" almost always invite the public enthusiasm. However, this does not by itself create "new facts" was accepted as a "new truth". Here is the location of the controversy.
In fact, the controversy could be minimized, if not avoided entirely, when historians or anyone who menyodorkan "new facts" that do not have pretensions reveal the mystery of history overall. It requires a humility that "new facts" that reveal only part of the mystery. However, should be complemented by that of "new facts" is ready to be tested by anyone. That "new facts" that hold the test, the historians themselves must be willing first mengujinya own setuntas possible. Here, the historian is not only charged work hard to collect data in the middle of scarcity of resources, but also to think hard data to test if it needs to be repeated until a saturation point.
Normative view of complicated procedures such, the historians who have pretensions reveal the mystery of history, either in part amid overall, including the actual "human ulet and daredevil." He ulet scratch in the middle of scarcity of data sources. He dare to test the data is limited before mengangkatnya and mengumumkannya as "new facts". However, the most basic is that he dare put-off against "public doubt." If successful, his work That will be a "bearer enlightenment." If this fails, the public may be mencibirnya as "sensation seekers".
Among other thoughts, such as frame with a controversy that almost every book or papers that have pretensions reveal the mystery of history can be understood and weighed, while quality. One current example of a good book by the author or the issuer didaku as the paper's history becoming the center of the controversy is Looking Supriyadi, Assistant Testimony Bung Karno Main, historian who works at the same time Jesuit clergyman Dr. T. Baskara Wardaya and published by Galangpress (2008). This book became a public controversy because the sites enthusiastic but doubted the "new facts" that disodorkannya.
As is known, Supriyadi as the noose of military rebellion against the occupation of Japan in Blitar, East Java, is considered leaving many mysteries. End of story perlawanannya episode and next-episode Babakan considered as a dark history as shocking lack of impressions-track the history of the abandoned. Mengangkatnya fact that the government as Minister of Defense 'in absentia' strengthen public confidence that he has been killed in the rebellion in Blitar, which is short, in spite of people do not know where jasadnya.
The assumption that such agreements have become common in such a way so that every effort to reveal the mystery that is strongly controversy, and now for the umpteenth time that the controversy occurred. However, controversy is never sustainable, because it is only associated with a particular moment, namely, the time before the warning proclamation of independence of Indonesia. Once the moment of the past, the controversy it disappeared.
The interest from the controversy surrounding the book Finding Supriyadi explanation is Andaryoko Prabu Vishnu as the main source of information and the author of the book itself will show as humble attitude, but if the watch is half-hearted attitude. As Baskara spoke T. Wardaya in the article "History and Society narratives" (Kompas, 27 / 9):
"For him [read: Andaryoko] the most important is not solely about him as Shodanco Supriyadi, but on the need to re-learn the history of Indonesia. He had no objection if there are other people who prove themselves capable of more Shodanco Supriyadi as the actual ".
This is made clear by the author, who said that:
"Andaryoko question is whether it Shodanco Supriyadi or not, this is not the focus of the book. The focus on the provision of more space for one of history to re-expressed opinions and experiences related to the history of Indonesia. ... Question is whether the correct Andaryoko Supriyadi Shodanco or not, the book is fully to the reader to assess and take attitude. "
It appears that the attitude behind the bullpen will be low-hearted attitude that contained a half-hearted. There is a kind of self-confidence with pendakuan that, while ketidaksiapan to be tested with conventional procedures normative research and writing history. On irony: the book is didaku as a history book, but do not want (because it is not ready) tested with the methodology of history, and take refuge behind the "intelligence and maturity of the readers."
Will be another story if since the beginning Baskara not have pretensions to write the history of Supriyadi, but examine the political memories of people - including Andaryoko - which had mendaku as Shodanco Supriyadi. The goal of the study political menyodorkan not recall "historical facts", but the search for meaning tuturan-tuturan recall it. In the study of political recall, the question is whether Andaryoko really Shodanco Supriyadi or not is not important, because that becomes the focus of attention is why he mendaku as self-Shodanco Supriyadi, what is the meaning pendakuan for themselves and the people or the surrounding communities, in relation to the context and what he is doing pendakuan. (Questions can be asked questions similar to those previously mendaku as Supriyadi).
The end result is a kind of study is not narrative history Shodanco Supriyadi, but may be a kind description of psycho-social conditions of most residents, or one generation that never honored, but now virtually forgotten. That there is searchable in recognition of their existence as part of the travel history of the nation.
Among undergraduate Indonesia, the study of political memories of such things is not actually a completely foreign. Study Andi F. Bakti collective memory of the people of South Sulawesi on Kahar Muzzakar in Mary S. Zurbuchen [ed.] Beginning to Remember: The Past in the Present English (2005) be feasible. Andi explained that in situ that although the official narrative of national states Kahar Muzzakar have died, some community groups in South Sulawesi, post-Suharto believes that figure is still alive. Andi goal is not to prove whether the conviction was correct or incorrect in a factual, but question why they have such confidence. Associated with the various issues that developed in the broad community Sulawesi, Andi then it until the discussion about political identity, the sentiment of anti-Java, the obsession apply Islamic formalization, which is not related to the facts as Kahar Muzzakar history, but as an icon Kahar Muzzakar countrified.
Such study is less dilirik the historian. But, clearly far more useful in the academic audience and create a broad study of the history of half-hearted.
lecturers of "Political Violence and Memories"
Master's Program in Culture and Religion,
Sanata Dharma University,