culture in indonesianNational integration is always associated with the unification of various groups of interests therein. Integration itself according Kuntowijoyo in his book Culture and Society, is a social problem that was never finished, always face the forces of disintegration. The existence of this conflict of interest is a Kuntowijoyo according to the nature, in which integration has a different meaning in each cultural group perspective, when a group managed to build his perspective on integration that form, He had a tendency to preserve it beyond the group with a perspective or Another meaning instead wanted disintegration, feel their interests are not accommodated.

Domination and subordination are indeed things that have long applied in Indonesia, particularly with New Order’s version of positivism which considers an absolute policy will apply to all layers of the nation. Almost, this happen when the issue of pornography and pornoaction later where the majority wanted the establishment of law and Pornoaksi Pornogafi Anti, which will threaten the sustainability of many cultures, such as the indigenous in Papua, which still retain koteka.

In this case is useful to refer to the idea of Drs. Sumarsono S et al are summarized in the book Citizenship Education (2001). Drs. Sumarsono S et al considered that the solutions to solve problems involving complex integration of cultural groups in Indonesia needs all the common perception among the public about the existence of such diversity, and should appear to foster the spirit of life together in harmony.

The similarity of these perceptions in the author’s view is a perfect solution, but it is difficult to achieve, because it involves a real battle of ego complex. When we say ‘common perception’ then we really have to do a process that ‘great’ and exhausting-ego demolish buildings which departs from the entrenched tribalism.

The concept is, in fact already be guaranteed with a parliamentary system in Indonesia, where the system of people’s representation in parliament is the fruit of a true democratic system of the aspirations of the people to participate in determining the fate of the country. However, in practice this has yet to materialize, because of the clash of egos and interests, too complex, especially the political and economic aspects which tend to defeat the socio cultural aspects, it is evidenced by the absence of law as a product or a parliament which discusses specifically the continuity culturally diverse nation.

The second solution, as mentioned above is a special law regulation or national culture. The absence of regulation or law for this culture, pointed out by many as one of the causes of many conflicts in the community that is based on misinterpretation of culture between different groups. The core spirit, of regulations pertaining to the culture of the nation not to merge all cultures into one (monokulturalisme), but rather the direction of recognition and importance of public understanding of cultural diversity will, until the establishment of pluralism in the public consciousness.

Another solution is to change shape of the country into a federal union like the United States with the states, where each cultural region in large groups have a special autonomy, it is different from current conditions, also with the concept of autonomy, but it always clashed in practice, because the center position still a central positivistic. Change the system this country, if they see the readiness of our nation would not have to put forward solutions, because the later will tend to create a fertile disintegration. United States needs a long period of history to become a strong country if the country is divided into sections, and we do not have much time to experience a period of history will take place with a variety of conflict again, what we need is one step forward with optimism amid globalization that threaten capitalism with its content.

Lack of regulation (the Act) which regulates inter-cultural life is one of the authors solution most appropriate value to overcome the problems of national integration, in this case provides an understanding of national culture should be interpreted as an understanding of plurality or diversity. At the core of national culture containing the spirit Bhineka Tunggal Ika, though different, but one also, which is a reflection of the principle muktikulturalisme.

In essence, multiculturalism itself calls for the unity of the various cultural groups with the right political and social status equal in modern society (Wikipedia). This is different from the more monokulturalisme wants to unity, which tend to be homogeneous, not the union that became a mirror of the plurality of harmonization. Pacasila second point, “the unity of Indonesia”, is the real answer to the question ‘complicated’ about the Indonesian culture.

Deni Andriana

Related Articles