Representations of doing ‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

Zane Goebel

Keywords: Unity in diversity, television in Indonesia, language ideologies,Indonesian regional languages, Indonesian language

Abstract: Indonesian has long been ideologised as the language for doing ‘Unity indiversity’. Even so, since the early 1990s televised representations of interactionacross lines of difference have also included linguistic forms that are typicallyassociated with regional languages. In interpreting this trend I draw upon workfrom linguistic anthropology to argue that the use of regional languages helps toproject and reinforce the different identities that are part of characters’ life worlds,while Indonesian is typically used to talk about the world. My empirical focus willbe three comedic soaps recorded in 1998 and 2009.

Indonesia is often cited as a model of successful language planningwith the spread of the national language, Indonesian, being seen askey to Indonesia’s efforts to build a nation out of a diverse andgeographically dispersed group of communities. The spread ofIndonesian was tightly linked with the spread of the national ideologyexpressed in the motto, ‘Unity in diversity’. Indonesian was seen asthe language that would achieve this unity. While the idea thatIndonesian is the language of inter-ethnic communication hasbecome a largely unchallenged national narrative (see Abas 1987;Dardjowidjojo 1998; Moeliono 1986), sociolinguistic research fromthe 1970s through to the 1990s shows that Indonesian is not alwaysthe language used among those of different ethnolinguisticbackgrounds (see Goebel 2010; Kartomihardjo 1981; Wolff andPoedjosoedarmo 1982). Instead, what is commonly found in inter-ethnic talk is the use of forms from regional languages such as

Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs, vol. 47, no. 1 (2013), pp. .

Javanese or Sundanese. While there are a number of situation specificreasons for this, one constant is that talk conducted solely inIndonesian lacks a feeling of intimacy, a point made by Errington(1985) a quarter of a century ago. A feeling of a lack of intimacycontrasts with the feelings of intimacy that can be achieved whenusing regional languages. Regional languages are usually the firstlanguage learned by most Indonesians and typically they are learnedand used in settings that involve intimate social relations such asamong family, friends, and in the neighbourhood.

While the social, economic, political and cultural changes thathave occurred in Indonesia since May 1998 have attracted sustainedinterest (Aspinall and Mietzner 2010; Bünte and Ufen 2009; Davidsonand Henley 2007; Hedman 2008; Holtzappel and Ramstedt 2009; Senand Hill 2011), it is only fairly recently that we are beginning to get apicture of what this looks like linguistically (see Arps 2010; Erringtonforthcoming; Foulcher, Moriyama and Budiman 2012; Goebel 2007;2012; Smith-Hefner 2007, 2009). In this paper my point of departurewill be the representation of regional languages on Indonesiantelevision broadcasts in Java. In particular, I will focus on the genre ofethnic comedy soaps and how the doing of ‘Unity in diversity’ has beenlinguistically represented since the initial introduction of ethnic soapsin the early 1990s. For various reasons this period has seen an increasein the use of fragments of regional languages amongst thoserepresented as belonging to the same ethnic group, especially in ethniccomedies (see Goebel 2008; Jurriëns 2004; Kitley 2000; Loven 2008;Moriyama 2012; Quinn 2012). I will argue that the ongoing use offragments of regional language in representations of inter-ethnic talkhelps to project and reinforce the different identities that are part ofcharacters’ life worlds, while Indonesian continues to be used to talkabout the world.

Relationships between linguistic forms, identities andsocial practice

Linguistic anthropologists working in the areas of languagesocialisation and language ideologies have helped us understand thecomplex relationships between linguistic forms, identity and social

Goebel

practice. Scholars working on language socialisation (such as Kulick1992; Ochs 1988; Schieffelin 1990; Schieffelin and Ochs 1986) haveshown us that in small-scale societies repetition of linguistic formswith different carers along with carers’ explicit instructions on how tofeel when using particular forms helps to associated or ‘index’ linguisticforms with various social practices, identities, and feelings. Otherlinguistic anthropologists working in the area of language ideologieshave extended this work to show us how this process works on a largescale, while also showing how linguistic forms also become indexedwith different types of people (see Agha 2007; Inoue 2006; Kroskrity2000; Schieffelin, Woolard and Kroskrity 1998). Typically, theseindexical relationships are two-way. For example, exposure to particularsocialisation practices allows us to identify others socially based uponour observations of their speech, while also allowing us to guess howsomeone who engages in particular social practices might speak and/orbehave in other settings.

Where Indonesia is concerned, a number of studies haveshown Indonesian and regional languages have indexical relationshipswith particular social types, social practices, and epistemologies.Errington (1998; 2000), for example, has shown that during the NewOrder period Indonesian usage became tightly associated withauthority, knowledge, truth and objectivity. Where regional languagesare concerned, Smith-Hefner (1988a; 1988b), Errington (1998) andGoebel (2010) have shown how different varieties of Javanese areindexed with different types of intimacy and localness. While a laterstudy by Smith-Hefner (2009) reports that attitudes to languagesocialisation practices are changing in Java (with some parentspreferring to socialise their children in Indonesian), other studies showthat the social value of Javanese has increased with decentralisation(Arps 2010; Quinn 2012). This latter observation may mean that atrend toward the use of Indonesian as the language of socialisation andthus intimacy and familial relations may be a short-lived one in placessuch as Central Java.

Turning to inter-ethnic contexts that are closer to thesituation to be examined in this paper, Wolff and Poedjosoedarmo(1982), Kartomihardjo (1981) and Goebel (2010) all show that in

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

inter-ethnic encounter in Java regional languages are often used tovarying degrees to help index intimacy and localness in talk. Goebel,for example, points out that while newcomers who moved into twoneighbourhoods of Semarang, Central Java were extremely competentin Indonesian, nevertheless they chose to learn and use fragments ofJavanese when talking with both their Javanese neighbours and withthose from different ethnic groups. Part of the reason for this was thatIndonesian had associations with distant social relationships, whileJavanese had strong associations with intimate local socialrelationships. Indeed, Indonesian usage often worked against doing‘Unity in diversity’ in these two neighbourhoods. For example, someneighbours were socially ostracised and in some cases verballythreatened with violence for not assimilating to local ways of doingthings and interacting, which included a need to understand and speakfragments of Javanese in inter-ethnic encounters.

The finding that Indonesian is not the default language ofactual instances of inter-ethnic communication is hardly surprising.This is so because the very nature of communication across lines ofdifference among those who have never met before means that thereis a lack of models of communication in such settings. In turn, thismeans that many things are open to negotiation in interaction acrosslines of difference, including what language is to be used and themeaning of the linguistic forms that are used. In cases wherestrangers need to continue to interact, typically a new language and awhole range of appropriate behaviours emerge as more or lessstandard amongst these people (Goebel 2010). As a communicationfrontier, it is no wonder that producers of television material who tryand represent communication across lines of difference can take a lotof poetic licence in representing these types of interaction.According to some scholars of Indonesian television (Goebel 2008;Loven 2008), when ethnic comedies first became popular inIndonesia in the early 1990s and onward, producers were oftenchided by viewers and academics for not providing sufficientlyauthentic speakers of ethnic languages. In contrast, negativecommentaries about the language used in representations of inter-ethnic encounter are rare.

Goebel

Television representations of doing ‘Unity in diversity’during the New Order

As Kitley (2000) has pointed out, from the introduction of televisionthrough to the 1980s, television was seen as a facilitator of educationand as a means to help spread Indonesian. While typically this wasdone via speakers who used highly standardised forms of Indonesian,there were some exceptions, such as the children’s show Si Unyul(Unyul), which was broadcast from 1981 to 1993 (Kitley 2000). Thisprogram had one of the main characters speaking Indonesiandifferently to other characters. This character, Bu Bariah (Mrs Bariah),explicitly grounded her difference in terms of region through hercommentaries about herself as someone hailing from Madura in EastJava (Kitley 2000:112–37). According to Kitley, the only other notableexception to Indonesian language broadcasts was a series entitled,Lenong Rumpi, which had some local content and fragments from aregional language (Kitley 2000:98).

With the entry of commercial television in the early 1990s,local content and dialogues that contained regional languages becameincreasingly common. The entry of five new television stationsbetween 1990 and 1993 made it increasingly difficult for any one ofthese stations to gain and maintain market share (Kitley 2000:150–3;Sen and Hill 2000:123–4). One of the ways in which these private andpublic stations tried to do this was to include more local content,including that which had increasing amounts of interaction usingforms associated with regional languages,1 especially in comedic sinetron(soap opera) (Kitley 2000; Loven 2008; Rachmah Ida 2009; Sen andHill 2000).

In a bid to stem the tide of foreign films and unwanted‘Western’ influence on Indonesians, in late 1996 the government alsomoved their position on local content and ratified a law that wouldfoster local content over international content (Kitley 2000:298). Thesetelevised representations of the local also occurred at a time ofeconomic development (Vickers 2005), and cheaper access totelevision sets which fuelled a rapid increase in television ownershipacross Indonesia in the mid-1990s (Kitley 2000). While the Asianeconomic crisis that hit Indonesia in mid-1997 and the rapid inflation

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

that accompanied this crisis decreased Indonesians’ ability to buytelevisions, it did accentuate a move toward more local content. As Ida(2008:97) notes, the economic crisis meant that local soap operas weremuch cheaper than foreign imports and broadcast content moved from90 per cent foreign in 1997 to 67 per cent local in 1999.

The programming of material with regional languages duringthe 1990s brought with it a number of tensions. On the one hand,much of the local content highlighted ethnicity and ethnic languages,something that stood in contrast to the New Order’s ideas about theimportance of downplaying ethnicity and difference. On the other,some of this programming also began to challenge ideologies thatIndonesian was the language of communication among Indonesians ofdifferent ethnolinguistic backgrounds. One standout example of thiscan be found in series three of the long running popular series Si DoelAnak Sekolahan (Doel, an educated lad), which was broadcast nationallyon SCTV in 1998. There are a number of underlying themes of thisseries, and the feature-length films and novels that it draws upon.These include the difference in educational opportunities betweendifferent generations, the idea of Jakarta having a specific ethniccommunity, namely Betawi, and the idea that as an ethnic group Betawistereotypically do not value education (Loven 2008).

The story is set in the outskirts of Jakarta. The main character,Doel, lives with his mother, Lela, Doel’s younger sister, Atun, Lela’syounger brother and Doel’s uncle, Mandra. They have a neighbour,Karyo, who is a migrant from Central Java. Karyo is romanticallyinvolved with Atun. While Rano Karno, the producer of Si Doel (andthe actor who plays Doel), was quite keen to provide an authenticrepresentation of Betawiness, the representation of authentic languageuse was just one of the semiotic recourses that was to be used to pointto or index this image of authenticity (Goebel 2008; Loven 2008). Inwhat follows I will look at representations of inter-ethnic interactionsbetween Karyo and some of these characters to point out the subtleways in which authenticity is pulled off through the use of fragmentsof Betawi, Javanese, and Indonesian. I will be especially concernedwith showing how different forms index a host of identities in inter-ethnic encounter.

Goebel

Before turning to some extracts from this soap I should pointout that for all the examples here my initial classification of linguisticrepresentations was carried out by an Indonesian research assistant. Ichecked these classifications drawing upon my knowledge of Indonesianand other regional languages gained through fieldwork and other visitsto Central and West Java since the early 1990s. However, there are anumber of factors that complicate this categorisation and thus it is in noway definitive. For example, Indonesian words have been adopted fromwhat have been labelled ‘Javanese’ and ‘Sundanese’, and the reverse isalso true. Indonesian also shares word order and affixation patterns withmany of these languages, especially Javanese and Sundanese.

The following scene is taken from the episode entitled MenitiBatas Mimpi (Walking along the edge of a dream). This scene ispreceded by a shot of Karyo raising a birdcage up a pole located besideLela’s house. Karyo then moves to Lela’s nearby warung (small shop),where Karyo starts his conversation with Lela. What is interesting hereis the representation of Karyo’s ability to comprehend linguistic formsassociated with Betawi (in bold underline), while also using some ofthese forms. As I move through to other examples I will introduceother font conventions that I will use to represent forms that areassociated with other languages. Except for these different fontconventions, I do not follow common sociolinguistic conventions torepresent how people speak. Instead, I simply provide the content interms of linguistic forms and this is laid out using common writtenpunctuation conventions. More specifically, I use a comma to indicatewhere the participants pause and a period where they finish a sentence.

Extract 1 Doing ‘Unity in diversity’ using linguistic forms associated with Betawi(Source: Karno 1998)

Karyo1 Maknyak, bang Mandra sudah Mum, older brother Mandra 2 jalan toh? has already gone heh?Lela

3 Udah. Yeah.Karyo

4 Kok tumben loh pagi pagi. Gee that’s unusual [for him to get up] so early.

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

Lela5 Iyé mau ke rumahnya Munaroh. Yeah, [he] wants to go

to Munaroh’s house.Karyo

6 Ke rumah Munaroh? To Munaroh’s house?Lela

7 Iya. Yeah.Karyo

8 Ngelamar ya? [He] wants to propose [marriage]yeah?

Lela9 Nggak. Cuma mau nanyain, kapan No, [he] only wants to ask when10 lamarannya bisa diterimé, gitu. [is the best time to propose so

that] it is accepted [by hisgirlfriend’s parents].

Karyo11 Oh, jadi belum ya mak ya? Oh, so not yet heh Mum yeah?Lela

12 Ya belon dong! No of course not yet!Karyo

13 Atun ada mak? Is Atun around Mum?Lela

14 Ada noh lagi sarapan. Yeah, there having breakfast.

What is interesting about this representation is that Karyois portrayed as an ethnic Javanese who has recently migrated toJakarta and who, on occasions, uses and is spoken to in Betawi in aninter-ethnic interaction where we might expect to have Indonesian.For example, Karyo uses the kin terms maknyak ‘Mum’ and bang‘older brother’ on lines 1, 11 and 13. We also see that Karyo appearsto comprehend the Betawi fragments spoken by Lela (lines 6 and11). It is important to note here that such usage is situational and inother parts of the serial Karyo uses and is spoken to in languagethat has forms that are primarily associated with Indonesian,especially in interactions with those with whom he doesn’t haveclose social relations. He only appears to use Betawi fragmentswhen interacting with familiars, especially those who live nearby.Thus, while Karyo’s Betawi usage here is situational, by looking at

Goebel

wider interactional patterns we find it also represents a habitualpattern of language use.

That Karyo’s use of Betawi forms is habitual among thosewith whom he has close social relations also points to its use as onemeans of indexing intimate social relations. In short, these forms helpto convey information about personal life worlds. It is also notsurprising that the linguistic forms most regularly used to indexintimacy are terms for self and other reference, which are moregenerally exemplars par excellence for indexing identities in interaction.This contrasts with the use of Indonesian forms which are used to talkabout the world. For example, in extract 1 we see that Indonesian isused to gain and give information about the whereabouts of Mandra(lines 1–2 and 5) and Atun (lines 13–14), as well as Mandra’s marriageplans (lines 8–11).

While the above explanation does not account for the otherBetawi forms such as the use of iyé ‘yes’, diterimé ‘received’, belon ‘notyet’, and noh ‘there’, the use of these additional forms helps index anumber of important identities. First of all, the use of such formshelps to reinforce the Betawiness of the setting. (A sense ofBetawiness is also reinforced through other semiotic resources, such asLela’s house, the family’s social practices, and so on). Second, not beingable to exclusively use Indonesian inter-ethnically also indexes a lack ofeducational opportunities for Lela, especially when compared to Doelwho uses less Betawi forms. This helps to index one of the themes ofthis soap, namely the importance of education.

Representations of linguistically doing ‘Unity in diversity’ arealso found in subsequent interactions and episodes where we seeKaryo interacting using forms associated with Javanese. He does thiswith his girlfriend, Atun, who is represented as a Betawi. Importantly,Atun is represented as someone who understands and follows suchtalk. A striking example of this can be seen in Karyo’s interactionwith Lela’s younger brother, Mandra, in extract 2. This scene occursat the end of this episode. It is preceded by Mandra meeting with hisgirlfriend, Munaroh, who tells him that they best wait to get marrieduntil Mandra has a more secure job. Mandra then returns home earlyand depressed and goes to lie down under a jackfruit tree outside

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

Lela’s house. When asked what is up, he says nothing to his sister Lelanor to his niece, Atun, or nephew, Doel. Karyo then enters the scenewhere Mandra is examining a small jackfruit. After asking how he isand not getting an answer, Karyo briefly teases Mandra about the sizeof his lips before asking how his marriage proposal went. Uponhearing that it was unsuccessful Karyo comforts him by tellingMandra that his day has been bad too because his lack of a Jakartanidentity card had led to an unsuccessful credit application. Javanese isin bold capitals. (I have not differentiated between the different stylesor levels of Javanese used here.) I have also included reference tobody language and gaze which is often used in such interactionsinstead of speaking.

Extract 2 Doing ‘Unity in diversity’ using linguistic forms associated with Javanese(Source: Karno 1998)

Karyo1 MAS, OPO SAMPEYAN juga punya OLDER BROTHER, DO YOU also2 TOH? KTP Jakarta. have one? A Jakartan identity

card.Mandra

3 (Nods head.) Yes.Karyo

4 Bener? Really?Mandra

5 (Nods head.) Yes.Karyo

6 Boleh ndak, kalo saya pinjem? What do [you] think if I borrow[your KTP]?

Mandra7 (Looks up and sighs.)Karyo

8 buat ngajuin kredit, nanti kalo To put in a finance application.9 kriditnya keluar, SAMPEYAN Later if it is successful I’LL

10 TAK KASIH komisi. GIVE YOU [a] commission.Mandra

11 (Turns gaze toward Karyo and then takes12 out his wallet and proceeds to take out13 his identity card and give it to Karyo.)

Goebel

Karyo14 Haduh, ha, lah ini, KTP Jakarta yang Wow, this is it, the Jakartan15 TAK cari cari, ya ini loh MAS. A WIS, identity card that I’VE been16 KELAKON kredit AKU MAS, SIP, eh, looking for. Ya, this is the one17 waduh, GANTENGÉ PHOTONÉ. OLDER BROTHER, yes! I’ve

already GOT finance OLDER

BROTHER, GREAT! Eh, wow.[You are really] HANDSOME IN

THE PHOTO.Karyo

18 Loh! iss. Ini masa berlakunya, sudah What! Hey! This card is expired, 19 abis gini loh. SAMPEYAN ni PIYÉ TOH! you know. WHAT IS UP WITH YOU!20 Ini loh MBOK diliat tu! Masa berlaku, Here have a look! DIDN’T [you]21 lima februari, sembilan tujuh, berarti see this! Valid until 5 February22 telat setahun. SAMPEYAN KUDU ngurus 97, that means it has [already23 ke kelurahan lagi ini. Sudah ndak laku! been expired] for one year! YOU

MUST go to the local governmentoffice again. [This one] is alreadyexpired!

Mandra24 Sini! Emangnya guwa pendatang kayak Give it here (grabs card from Karyo’s25 elu! guwa betawi asli! Biar gak punya hand)! It doesn’t matter, I’m not26 KTP, juga gak apa apa. Ngak bakal a newcomer like you! I’m a genuine27 ditangkap. Emangnya kayak elu. Betawi! Even if [I] don’t have an28 Ditangkep lu, kalo ngak punya KTP identity card it is OK. I’ll never be29 Jakarta! Tolol! arrested [by the police]. Not like

you. You’ll be arrested if you don’thave a Jakartan identity card, idiot!

What sets this extract apart from extract 1 is that now Karyois using linguistic forms that are stereotypically associated withJavanese (in bold capitals) in his encounter with Mandra. Mandra, whois represented as a Betawi, is nevertheless represented ascomprehending these forms through his responses on lines 3, 11 and24. As we follow the interaction from line 18 onwards things turn sourand we get to see how fragments of regional languages (Betawi andJavanese) can be used to do ‘Disunity in diversity’. As with extract 1,some of the Javanese used here are pronouns (sampeyan) and kin terms(mas), which are again forms that are most easily recognised as indexing

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

intimacy and particular identities. We also see that Indonesian is oftenused for talking about the world, such as why Karyo needs Mandra’sKTP (lines 8–9), that the KTP has expired and needs to be renewed(lines 18–19 and 20–23).

There is also the use of other Javanese forms that are notpronouns or kin terms. Like the use of other Betawi forms in extract1, here these forms help to index lack of schooling on the part ofKaryo because of his inability to use ‘proper’ Indonesian. Indeed, partof the comedic effect of interactions between Karyo and others is thecontrast between Karyo’s and other characters’ linguistic abilities. Forexample, bar Mandra and Lela, most characters are represented asspeaking ‘better more educated Indonesian’ than Karyo. In short, theuse of other Javanese forms inter-ethnically helps to index anuneducated social identity.

In sum, what we see in Si Doel is that fragments of a regionallanguage appear to be a common way of representing multipleidentities and the complexities of social relationships across lines ofdifference. These representations offer a model of doing ‘Unity indiversity’ that doesn’t exclusively involve Indonesian. This modelcontrasts with earlier models whereby social relations amongst thosefrom different backgrounds was ideologised as being done inIndonesian. In interpreting the use of fragments of regional languagein inter-ethnic encounter, I have suggested that these fragments help tosignal a number of important aspects of social relations and characteridentities, including intimacy, lack of education, and ethnicity. In short,regional languages index personal life worlds. These fragments ofregional languages sit in tension — often within the same utterance —with Indonesian which is used to talk about the world such as to reportand request person’s whereabouts and the state of affairs.

Television representations of doing ‘Unity in diversity’in 2009

While ideas about the ‘ethnic other’ and interaction among ethnicothers was largely associated with positive social relations in Indonesiain the early 1990s, from the mid-1990s onwards the idea of ethnicitywas increasingly associated with negative social relations, such as inter-

Goebel

ethnic conflict. The appropriation of land for logging, mining andtransmigration projects in the islands outside of Java brought withthem economic migrants and these ethnic and religious others wereincreasingly perceived as unwelcome guests by receiving populations inplaces such as Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Aceh and Irian Jaya (see thepapers in Davidson and Henley 2007; Hedman 2008; Manning and VanDiermen 2000; Resosudarmo 2005). They were unwelcome becausethey were perceived as not only taking part in the illegal or unfairappropriation of their land, but because they also did not wish toassimilate to local ways of doing things.

These issues were compounded by the severe economicdownturn that started in 1997 and continued for over ten years. Thiseconomic uncertainty produced social unrest across Indonesia leadingto the fall of the Soeharto regime (see the papers in Aspinall and Fealy2003; Forrester 1999; Lloyd and Smith 2001). The centralism of theNew Order regime was replaced with localism and the politicisation ofethnicity, which picked up steam through political and fiscaldecentralisation. In many cases feelings of localism turned into inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflicts between ‘indigenous locals’ and(trans)migrants in places such as Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku, Acehand Irian Jaya (see the papers in Hedman 2008). Like many Indonesianswho sought to understand and prevent conflict, media professionalstoo engaged in activities that they thought would help ease inter-ethnictensions. Loven (2008:45) observes that after 2002 media professionalssupported the setting up of regional television stations acrossIndonesia as a way of increasing inter-ethnic understanding and easingthe inter-ethnic tensions that had emerged in Indonesia. This move wasunintentionally facilitated by a new broadcasting bill (No. 32/2002,Article 36, point 2) that stipulated that 60 per cent of televisionbroadcasts should contain local material (Rachmah 2008:97). By 2004there were 60 private local stations and a further 53 had lodgedapplications to start broadcasting (Rachmah 2009:42).

Some of the outcomes of these efforts can be seen in theprogramming of 2009, which is the focus of this section. Afterpointing out some more general patterns, I turn my focus to two soapswhich represent inter-ethnic interactions being conducted in a mix of

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

Indonesian and regional languages. As with Si Doel, fragments ofregional languages are typically used in talk about personal life worldsand help to index characters’ identities as uneducated, poor, and ethnic,while Indonesian is typically used in talk about the world. The twosoaps that I look at here are part of a database of around four hundredhours of television broadcasts that I recorded in August 2009 inCirebon. These television broadcast recordings covered a sample ofeleven of the twelve television stations that were broadcasting at thetime of this field trip. Of these eleven, one was a local station, RCTV,while the rest were Jakarta-based commercial broadcasters. I recordedeach station for a minimum of a day, and often up to four days whenbroadcast reception was good. These recordings were made starting ataround 5.00 a.m. and usually finishing at 1.00 a.m. the followingmorning. While this data is far from being a perfect sample, it doesprovide enough data to point out some patterns of broadcast contentand representational practices.

Table 2 provides a calendar-type summary of which televisionbroadcasts were recorded, along with information on when, and forhow long. I also note how much content contained linguistic formsthat are stereotypically associated with regional languages. This figure isin hours and is in italics. As can be seen in this table, the representationof fragments of regional languages being used intra-ethnically andinter-ethnically was common on any day of the week. While somematerial, such as on-the-spot interviews found in news timeslotscontained whole utterances in regional languages, typically the soapoperas, variety shows, and commercials that represented inter-ethnictalk only contained a couple of forms, usually kin terms, or shortutterances. As I moved through these recordings it was also evidentthat while this type of material could be found in almost any timeslotbetween 5.00 a.m. and 1.00 a.m. the next morning, this material wasmost common in the timeslots between 7.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., 12noon and 3.00 p.m., and 5.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. As can be seen fromtable 2, programming containing fragments of regional languages wasmore common on some stations and on particular days. Friday, forexample, had the most representations of regional languages. This wasperhaps because Friday was imagined to be a day with a potentially

Goebel

larger audience vis-à-vis Friday being a short working day for many ofIndonesia’s majority Moslem population.

In the rest of this section I will focus upon two soaps. Similarin many respects to Si Doel, these comedies are geographicallyanchored to Jakarta via shots of the multiple elevated highways onlyfound in Jakarta, the skyscrapers lining the skyline and streets full ofcars with B number plates. There are also other signs that anchor thesestories to place. These include the occasional appearance of bajai(motorised pedicabs), music that has links with other ethnic typecomedies anchored to Jakarta, such as Si Doel and Bajai Bajuri (Bajuri’sBajai). As with Si Doel, in these two soaps the doing of ‘Unity in

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

Sun Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8TRANS7 TRANS7 TRANS7 TRANS710.00 a.m. 5.00 a.m. 6.00 a.m. 5.00 a.m.–1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m.1.75 hours 1.3 hours 2.8 hours 1.1 hours

9 10 11 12 13 14 15RCTV(L) RCTI RCTI RCTI GlobalTV GlobalTV SCTV10.00 a.m. 6.00 a.m. 6.00 a.m. 5.00 a.m. 6.00 a.m. 5.00 a.m. 6.00 a.m.–12 p.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m.

2.5 hours 2.5 hours 3.25 hours 3.4 hours 2.0 hours 3.8 hours 2.1 hours

16 17 18 19 20 21 22ANTV ANTV SCTV Indosiar Indosiar TransTV TransTV8.00 p.m. 5.00 a.m. 3.00 a.m. 6.00 a.m. 5.00 a.m. 6.00 a.m. 3.00 a.m.–1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m. –1.00 a.m.

1.0 hours 0.75 hours 0.9 hours 1.9 hours 2.0 hours 2.0 hours 5.0 hours

23 24 25 26 27 28 29TVOne TVOne TPI4.00 p.m. 5.00 a.m. 4.00 a.m.–1.00 a.m. –4.00 p.m. –1.00 a.m.

2.0 hours 0.5 hours 3.75 hours

30 31Table 2. Programming with regional languages in August 2009

Diversity’ continues to be represented as being done through acombination of linguistic forms stereotypically associated withIndonesian and regional languages, rather than just Indonesian.

Extract 3 is taken from the comedic soap, OB (Office Boy),which is set in an office in Jakarta. Some of the main actors have voicesassociated with ethnic social types from West Java (Sundanese) andJakarta (Betawi). In the extract below, Ipul, uses linguistic formsstereotypically associated with Sundaneseness (bold italics underline)when interacting with two others, Susi and Saodah. Susi and Saodahalso use linguistic forms stereotypically associated with Betawi socialtypes (bold underline) in their interactions with Ipul. This interactionoccurs after one of the office staff asks Susi to guard the female toiletdoor while he is using the women’s toilet (the mens’ toilet wasengaged). Susi was getting bored with waiting when Ipul walks up thecorridor and the following conversation ensues.

Extract 3. Doing ‘Unity in diversity’ in the office in 2009Source: RCTI, OB (Shift 2), Monday 10 August 2009, (3–4 p.m.)

Sus i1 Ooo, lama banget sih Pak Hendra. Gee, why is Pak Hendra taking

so long?Ipul

2 (???) (???) (while humming and playing (???) (???)with his hair and approaching Susi)

Sus i4 aaahaha (slaps Ipul on the arm)kebetulan Aaa (here is someone to take5 lu datang ha. Gantiin gué ya. my place) as it happens you

have come by, replace me yeah!Ipul

6 Eh, gantiin naon t eh? Eh, replace what olde r si st e r?Sus i

7 Ndak jangan kebanyakan nanya Stop, don’t ask too many8 (while grabbing his shirt, moving around Ipul questions.9 and pushing him in front of toilet door) nah Now, you just stay 10 lu diam aja di sini. Berdiri di sini, ya. here, stand here, OK?

Goebel

Ipu l11 (doesn’t say anything and looks at (No affirmative response)12 Susi with confused expression). Susi

13 Ntar kalau misalnya ada cewek yang Later, if for example a woman14 mau masuk, jangan dikasih. Ngerti comes to use the toilet, don’t let15 kagak? Ya itu pun kalau lu kagak them in. Understand or not? That16 mau dimarahin. Ngerti nggak? is if you don’t want to get in

trouble. [Do you] understandor not?

Ipu l17 Enya enya atuh enya . Yes , y es , OK, yes .Susi

18 Bagus (puts up thumb and walks off ). OK, Great.Ipu l

19 (Puts up thumb) alus enya. OK, great ye s.Saodah

20 (Exits a door located nearly opposite21 the toilet door guarded by Ipul) Ipu l

22 Wah ah (puts up two hands) punten teh. Gee, I ’m so rry olde r si st e r,23 Kata teh Susi nggak ada yang boleh older s i st er Susi said that no masuk. one is allowed to go in.Saodah

24 Eee siapa juga yang mau masuk.Gué What? Who wants to go in? I25 justru mau minta lu pijitin gué. actually want you to give me a

massage.26 Badan gué udah pegel semua nih. My whole body is very stiff.Ipu l

27Eee tapi kata t eh Susi (while pointing). Oh, but older sister Susi said.Saodah

28 (Grabs Ipul and pushes him in front of her29 through the door into the common room.)

In the above talk we see that all actors use and expect each otherto understand linguistic forms that are associated with particular

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

ethnolinguistic communities. Susi and Saodah are represented asunderstanding Sundanese forms. For example, Susi is represented asunderstanding Ipul’s use of Sundanese interrogatives (naon), kin terms(teh the shortened form of teteh), enya ‘yes’ (see lines 6–10 and 17–18) andpunten ‘sorry/excuse me’. Similarly, Soadah is shown as understandingIpul’s Sundanese usage on lines 22–26. On lines 6, 17 and 27 Ipul isrepresented as understanding forms associated with Betawi, such asterms for self and other reference (lu and gué) and negation (kagak).

As with the two previous examples from Si Doel, we can seethat the majority of regional language forms are made up of terms for‘I’ and ‘you’. While these forms help to index familiarity, in this caseintimacy gained through working together in an office setting, as withearlier extracts Indonesian is typically used for talking about the world.The other regional language forms (such as kagak and enya) help toindex other important social relationships and identities, such as lack ofeducation. These semiotic forms are reinforced through the socialactivities engaged in by Ipul, Soadah, and Susi. For example, as with theunderemployed and poor Javanese migrant, Karyo in Si Doel, in thissoap Ipul, Soadah and Susi are all represented as social types workingin low paid jobs. In this case they all work as cleaners in the high-riseoffice where the story is set. In a sense, what we are seeing is anindexing of economic hardship with mixed language, that isIndonesian and forms associated with regional languages.

Indexical relationships between mixed language,communication across lines of difference, and economic fortunes canalso be found in other comedies, such as Bukan Romeo Juliet ‘It’s notRomeo and Juliet’, which was broadcast on ANTV. Here I will focus onone episode from this series, Banyak orderan banyak masalah (Plenty oforders, plenty of problems). The talk in extract 4 occurs as Sutini isattending her coffee shop and Melani arrives. Like Karyo from Si Doel,Sutini has been represented as a recent migrant from Java, while Melanihas been represented as a local who is of Chinese ancestry by way of herfamiliarity with and use of kin terms associated with Chineseness, suchas oweh (I). Sutini remembers that Melani is the ex-girlfriend of the boynext door and the following talk ensues. As with the previous extracts,Javanese is in bold capitals and Indonesian is in plain font. I have also

Goebel

used italics for forms that could be classified as either Indonesian orJavanese, and bold italic capitals is used to represent English forms.

Extract 4. Representing the doing of ‘Unity in diversity’ in Jakarta in 2009Source: ANTV, Bukan Romeo Juliet, Sunday 16 August 2009, (8–9 p.m.)

Melani1 MORNING MBAK Sutini. MORNING SISTER Sutini.Sut in i

2 Eeeee GOOD MORNING, um Oh, GOOD MORNING, um3 MBAK Melani kan [you are] SISTER Melani right?Melani

4 Betul. Yes.Sut in i

5 Lah, mesti ke sini cari MAS Alung. So, [you] must have come herelooking for BROTHER Alung.

Melani6 Iya dong. Habis aku kangen sih MBAK. Of course. I miss [him] so

much, you know, SISTER.Sut in i

7 Loh MBAK? YOU kan udah tahu, What SISTER? YOU already know8 kalau MISALÉ MAS Alung dah ada right, that FOR EXAMPLE

9 GIRLFRIENDnya. Nanti MISALÉ BROTHER Alung already has a10 rebut lagi kaya waktu itu PIYÉ? GIRLFRIEND. Later if FOR

EXAMPLE, [you both] fight againlike before, THEN WHAT?

Melani11 (Melani’s smile turns to a sad face as (Melani is represented as being 12 she turns her body away from Sutini upset at what Sutini has said.)and sits down.)Sut in i

13 Aduh MBAK. Maksud I AM nggak Gee SISTER, I didn’t mean 14 gitu loh. Aaa ndak usah. it like that. Um [you] don’t need…Melani

15 Udah udah. Ndak apa apa MBAK. [It’s] OK . [It’s] OK. [It’s] alright16 Ndak apa apa. SISTER, [it’s] alright

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

The talk in extract 4 is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstwe see that both Melani and Sutini are represented as using andunderstanding fragments of English (lines 1–2 and 7–13). There are anumber of ways we can interpret the use of English here. For example, wemight explain this usage as an outcome of ubiquitous nature of English ineveryday life in Indonesia, including in the media and in Indonesianschools. English also has associations with social status, as those fromwealthier backgrounds have more systematic and sustained exposure toEnglish. There are other possibilities, but I won’t try and interpret thisanymore here as my main focus is on regional languages. As can be seenin lines 8–10 Sutini uses forms that are stereotypically associated withJavanese (bold capitals) in an inter-ethnic encounter. As with Sutini’s useof English, her talk is represented as being understood by Melani.

In interpreting this usage we continue to see a pattern of typesof intimacy — in this case familiarity — being indexed through the useof forms associated with regional languages. In this case it is mbak (oldersister/you). Although this Javanese form is now common in everydayusage in Jakarta and often associated with reference to hired maids, it isre-linked with Javanese by way of its existence in talk where other morerecognisably Javanese forms are used (such as the use of the suffix é andthe interrogative piyé ‘what about/how about’). These other forms alsopoint to Sutini’s education insofar as she is not exclusively usingIndonesian in interaction across lines of difference. We also see thatIndonesian is often used for talking about the world. For example, it isused to report the status of affairs, as in why Melani is there (line 5),states of knowledge (lines 7–9) and reports of past events (lines 9–10).

In summary, the patterns that were present in representationsof interaction across lines of difference in the late 1990s seem to berepeated in 2009. So too are the indexical associations betweenIndonesian and talk about the world and indexical relationships betweenregional languages and talk about personal life worlds such as socialidentities, types of intimacy, economic status and level of education.

Conclusion

In this paper I have examined televised representations of the doing of‘Unity in diversity’ from the 1990s until 2009. I pointed out that a

Goebel

common pattern found in these representations was the use of formsassociated with a regional language whether Javanese, Sundanese orBetawi. This sits in contrast to the ideology that Indonesian is thelanguage of doing ‘Unity in diversity’. This practice was part of a trendof providing more local content that started in the early 1990s andcontinued for various and often quite different reasons, includingmarket share, exchange rates, and so on.

In taking a close look at a number of instances of talk fromthree different soaps, I highlighted three patterns. The first was wherekin terms and terms for ‘I’ and ‘you’ from regional languages were usedto index the different types of intimacy that existed between characters.Other fragments of regional languages indexed other identities such‘uneducatedness’ or belonging to the lower economic rungs ofIndonesian society. This was so because Indonesian as the ideologisedlanguage of inter-ethnic communication was typically learnt at schooland thus lack of ability to exclusively use Indonesian across lines ofdifference points to a lack of schooling. For most Indonesian who donot go to school or finish school before finishing grade 12 (SMA/SMU3), typically this is because they are not economically able to pay forschool or able to forego the income that could be earned by workinginstead of going to school. The last pattern was where Indonesian wascommonly used to talk about the world. As with language use in otherplaces of the world, and indeed everyday practices in neighbourhoodsacross Indonesia, these forms were mixed in one utterance rather thanone utterance containing solely a regional language and the nextutterance solely in Indonesian. While there are a number of features ofthese represented dialogues that fit with how fragments of regionallanguages are used in everyday unmediated talk across lines ofdifference (Goebel 2010), it is important to also keep in mind thatrepresented dialogues in Indonesia and elsewhere are the outcome of acomplex process involving soap producers, financiers, actors — whosedialogues can range from being totally scripted to spontaneous —consultants, television station management, advertisers, and so on(Loven 2008; Richardson 2010).

One important insight from recent language use studies inIndonesia is that the social value of regional languages has increased

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

with the political, economic, social and cultural processes emanatingfrom decentralisation efforts (Moriyama 2012; Quinn 2012; Ramstedt2009). With this trend we may see the patterns reported here repeatedin future televised representations. In places with large numbers ofregional language speakers, such as Java, this valuing of regionallanguages may also be at the expense of Indonesian. That is to say,there is the potential that in interaction across lines of differenceregional languages may increasingly become part of everyday talk insettings that have ideologically been associated with the use ofIndonesian, though as nicely pointed out by scholars of Indonesiantelevision this will also depend on economic and political concerns aswell as media professionals ideologies about imagined televisionaudiences (Jurriëns 2004; Kitley 2000; Loven 2008; Rachmah 2006).

Zane Goebel is a senior lecturer in Indonesian Studies at La Trobe University. Hisemail address is z.goebel@latrobe.edu.au. He thanks Campbell Macknight andthe two reviewers for their insights and help in sharpening the argument presentedhere. He would also like to thank the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science(Grant No. C20520380), the Institute for Human Security, La Trobe University,and the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University for grantsthat have assisted in the preparation of this paper.

Note

1. At the same time these representations helped to build and reproduceassociations between linguistic forms, material signs, and place to strengthenideologies surrounding the ethnolinguistic categorisation of Indonesians asJavanese, Balinese, Sundanese, and so on.

Goebel

References

Abas, H 1987, Indonesian as a unifying language of wider communication: Ahistorical and sociolinguistic perspective, Pacific Linguistics, Canberra.

Agha, A 2007, Language and social relations, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Arps, B 2010, ‘Terwujudnya Bahasa Using di Banyuwangi dan perananmedia elektronik di dalamnya (selayang padang, 1970–2009)’, inMoriyama, M and Budiman, M (eds), Geliat bahasa selaras zaman:perubahan bahasa-bahasa di Indonesia pasca-orde baru, Research institutefor languages and cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University ofForeign Studies, Tokyo, pp. 225–48.

Aspinall, E and Fealy, G (eds) 2003, Local power and politics in Indonesia:decentralisation and democratisation, Institute of Southeast AsianStudies, Singapore.

Aspinall, E and Mietzner, M (eds) 2010, Problems of democratisation inIndonesia : elections, institutions and society, Institute of Southeast AsianStudies, Singapore.

Bünte, M and Ufen, A (eds) 2009, Democratization in Post-SuhartoIndonesia, Routledge, London.

Dardjowidjojo, S 1998, ‘Strategies for a successful national languagepolicy: The Indonesian case’, International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage, 130, pp. 35–47.

Davidson, J and Henley, D (eds) 2007, The revival of tradition in Indonesianpolitics: the deployment of adat from colonialism to indigenism, Routledge,London.

Errington, J 1985, Language and social change in Java: Linguistic reflexes ofmodernization in a traditional royal polity, Ohio University Press,Athens.

—— 1998, Shifting languages: Interaction and identity in Javanese Indonesia,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

—— 2000, ‘Indonesian(’s) authority’, in Kroskrity 2000, pp. 205–27.—— forthcoming, ‘In search of modern Indonesian: linguistic

dynamics in an urban periphery’, in Klinken, G van and Brown, C(eds), In search of Modern Indonesia.

Forrester, G (ed.) 1999, Post-Soeharto Indonesia: renewal or chaos?,Crawford House Publishing, Bathurst, NSW.

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

Foulcher, K, Moriyama, M, and Budiman, M (eds) 2012, Words inmotion: Language and discourse in Post-New Order Indonesia, ResearchInstitute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, TokyoUniversity of Foreign Studies, Tokyo.

Goebel, Z 2007, ‘Enregisterment and appropriation in Javanese-Indonesian bilingual talk’, Language in Society, 36(4), pp. 511–31.

—— 2008, ‘Enregistering, authorizing and denaturalizing identity inIndonesia’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 18(1), pp. 46–61.

—— 2010, Language, migration and identity: neighborhood talk in Indonesia,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

—— 2012,. ‘Enregisterment, communities, and authenticity: WatchingIndonesian teledramas’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22(2), pp. 1–20.

Hedman, E-L (ed.) 2008, Conflict, violence, and displacement in Indonesia,Cornell University Press, Ithaca NY.

Holtzappel, C and Ramstedt, M (eds) 2009, Decentralization and regionalautonomy in Indonesia: implementation and challenges, Institute ofSoutheast Asian Studies/International Institute for Asian Studies,Singapore/Leiden.

Inoue, M 2006, Vicarious language: gender and linguistic modernity in Japan,University of California Press, Berkeley.

Jurriëns, E 2004, Cultural travel and migrancy: The artistic representation ofglobalization in the electronic media of West Java, KITLV Press, Leiden.

Karno, R 1998,. Si Doel anak sekolah, Karnog Film, Jakarta.Kartomihardjo, S 1981, Ethnography of communicative codes in East Java,

Pacific Linguistics, Canberra.Kitley, P 2000, Television, nation, and culture in Indonesia, Ohio University

Press, Athens.Kroskrity, PV (ed.) 2000, Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, andidentities, School of American Research, Santa Fe.

Kulick, D 1992, Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self,and syncretism in a Papua New Guinean village, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Lloyd, G and Smith, S (eds) 2001, Indonesia today: challenges of history,Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Loven, K 2008, Watching Si Doel: television, language, and cultural identity incontemporary Indonesia, KITLV Press, Leiden.

Goebel

Manning, C and Diermen, P van (eds) 2000, Indonesia in transition: socialaspects of reformasi and crisis, Zed Books, London.

Moeliono, AM 1986, Language development and cultivation: Alternativeapproaches in language planning, Pacific Linguistics, Canberra.

Moriyama, M 2012, ‘Regional languages and decentralization in post-New Order Indonesia: the case of Sundanese’, in Foulcher andothers 2012, pp. 82–100).

Ochs, E 1988, Culture and language development: Language acquisition and languagesocialization in a Samoan village, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Quinn, G 2012, ‘Emerging from dire straits: post-New Orderdevelopments in Javanese language and literature’, in Foulcher andothers 2012, pp. 65–81.

Rachmah, I 2006, Watching Indonesian Sinetron: Imaginingcommunities around the television, unpublished PhD thesis, CurtinUniversity, Perth.

—— 2008, ‘Consuming Taiwanese boys culture: Watching MeteorGarden with urban Kampung women in Indonesia’, in Heryanto, A(ed.), Popular Culture in Indonesia: Fluid Identities in Post-authoritarianPolitics, Routledge, London, pp. 93–110.

—— 2009, Watching Indonesian sinetron: Communal TV viewing among urbankampung women, VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft,Saarbrücken.

Resosudarmo, B (ed.) 2005, The politics and economics of Indonesia's naturalresources,. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Richardson, K 2010, Television dramatic dialogue: a sociolinguistic study,Oxford University Press, New York.

Schieffelin, B 1990, The give and take of everyday life: language socialization ofKaluli children, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schieffelin, B and Ochs, E (eds) 1986, Language socialization across cultures,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schieffelin, B, Woolard, K and Kroskrity, PV (eds) 1998, Languageideologies: Practice and theory, Oxford University Press,New York.

Sen, K and Hill, DT 2000, Media, culture and politics in Indonesia, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

—— 2011, Politics and the media in twenty-first century Indonesia, Routledge,London.

‘Unity in diversity’ on Indonesian television

Smith-Hefner, N 1988a, ‘The linguistic socialization of Javanesechildren in two communities’, Anthropological Linguistics, 30(2), pp.166–98.

—— 1988b, ‘Women and politeness: the Javanese example’, Language inSociety, 17, pp. 535–54.

—— 2007, ‘Youth Language, Gaul Sociability, and the New IndonesianMiddle Class’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 17(2), pp. 184–203.

—— 2009, ‘Language Shift, Gender, and Ideologies of Modernity inCentral Java, Indonesia’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 19(1),pp.57–77.

Vickers, A 2005, A history of modern Indonesia, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Wolff, J and Poedjosoedarmo, S 1982, Communicative codes in Central Java,Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Goebel