See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259175528

Urban Symbolism and the New Urbanism of Indonesia

Chapter · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

12 2,328

1 author:

Hans-Dieter Evers
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
448 PUBLICATIONS   4,444 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Value of Diversity View project

Entwicklungsexperten in der Weltgesellschaft View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hans-Dieter Evers on 16 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Evers, Hans-Dieter. 2011. "Urban Symbolism and the New Urbanism of
Indonesia." Pp. 287-96 in Cities Full of Symbols. A Theory of Urban
Space and Culture., edited by Peter J.M. Nas. Leiden: Leiden
University Press.

Urban Symbolism and the New Urbanism of Indonesia

Hans-Dieter Evers
University of Bonn

Introduction
This paper, focused on Indonesia, deals with the relationship between material and
symbolic culture, between the forces of globalization and the reaction of urban actors.
It is preoccupied with the ‘disappearance of the real and its replacement by
simulation, hyper-reality and models’ (Gottdiener, 1995).
The paper is also concerned with a very practical, economic aspect of urban
development. The age of globalization has created a number of processes which
implied increasingly complex roles for Asian city, regional and national governments.
With foreign investments and the resulting inter-city competition, local governments
of large Asian cities have increasingly understood the need to remain competitive by
putting in place policies and projects to enhance the attractiveness of cities for
potential investors. In order to attract foreign investment and integrate a city into the
global economy, the image of a city has to be polished. As the case of Singapore
proves it was deemed necessary to build a concert hall, improve tourist spots like the
zoo or the bird park, market its culinary delights, build world-class research institutes
and universities and enable gambling in two state-of-the-art casinos. The government
of Singapore, as those of other large Asian cities, have realized that nobody is eager to
live and invest in a city without urbanism. Urbanism and the image of a city are
essential selling points for city development. Building on this insight a hypothesis on
urban development in Indonesia is proposed.

A hypothesis of urban development

The rate of urbanization in Indonesia, as elsewhere in Southeast Asia, has been low up
to the 1970s and early 1980s. Since then urbanization has been accelerated and a giant
mega-city has developed around Jakarta, known as Jabotabek, and other cities like
Surabaya, Bandung and Medan have grown to metropolitan proportions.
The pattern of urbanization in Indonesia has been described as one of ‘urban
involution’ (Evers, 1972) during the 1960s and 1970s when intricate patterns of an
informal urban economy developed without leading to the modernization of built
structures, modes of transport, industries and occupations. Involution – in contrast to
evolution – designates a process in which structures, patterns and forms become more
and more intricate and complex without reaching a new stage of evolution. According
to Geertz involution, an ‘inward overelaboration of detail’ (Geertz, 1963) leads to
stagnation and underdevelopment. For most towns and cities the growing bureaucracy
(Evers, 1987) and informal sector trade have been the major driving forces of
urbanization rather than industrialization or the development of a modern service
sector.

1
 Urbanization, Indonesia 1961-2000

45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
% urban pop
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1961 1971 1980 1990 2000

Source: BPS Census data

Table 1. Urbanization, Indonesia 1961-2000.

Quite detached from the reality of shared poverty, stagnation and

underdevelopment the capital city of Jakarta was symbolically created as an
exemplary centre of culture, national identity and power. A unitary post-colonial
nation state had to have an ‘exemplary centre’, a capital. It was therefore necessary to
develop a central capital city at least as a symbolic representation. ‘Virtual urbanism’
was essential to gloss over the harsh reality of a large urban sprawl of squatters and
semi-rural kampungs. It had to be demonstrated to the world that Indonesia was a
unified nation and a leader of the ‘newly emerging forces’ of the Third World. Jakarta
developed for the ‘imagined community’ of the Indonesian nation state a symbolic
universe of meaning, a virtual world of monuments, parade grounds and significant
buildings following a pattern of cultural, rather than material urbanization.
Today for Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung and Medan and some of the other larger
provincial capitals the process of involution has come to an end and – in the early
words of Terry McGee a ‘true urban revolution’ is under way (McGee, 1967). Less
than half of the Indonesian population makes a living from agriculture and an urban
middle class, following global patterns of consumption, changes the cityscape (Evers
and Gerke, 1997; Gerke, 2000; Clammer, 2003). Open markets are still there, but
shopping centres and malls have been constructed to cater for the new consumers and
high-rise buildings mark the new CBD (Central Business District) with an ICT
(Information and Communication Technology) infrastructure that enables world-wide
networking. This process has far-reaching consequences, which we shall explore.
Having set out the starting point of my hypothesis; let me elaborate the argument
point by point.

2
Weak Nusantara urbanism
In contrast to China, Japan, Vietnam or Thailand, which had strong traditions of urban
centres, Indonesia and the Malay World have a weak base in urbanism. In fact it has
been argued that the Nusantara cultural area had no cultural concept of the city before
the arrival of the Dutch (Yeung and Lo, 1976; Evers, 1984a). Going back to the
earlier Nusantara empires it can be shown that the centre of the realm was a palace
(kraton, istana) rather than a town. Unlike Beijing or Ayuthia, which were surrounded
by a wall and a moat, the capital of Majapahit or later on Yogyakarta had none of
these attributes of urbanism. Linguistically there was no concept of a city with a
bourgeoisie, as found in mediaeval Europe. Bandar or port and kota or fort had to be
used to designate places which during the colonial days became cities with a city
government.
Peter Nas in accordance with my earlier arguments (Evers, 1984a) that there were
no urban institutions and no conceptions of an urban area, uses the term ‘focal
urbanism’ to stress the importance of the palace (kraton or istana) surrounded by
retainers, craftsmen and peasants (Nas and Boender, 2002: 4). These areas
surrounding the palace could hardly be called cities in the Weberian sense. They
lacked most institutions of urbanism. Whatever the terminology, after the interlude of
Dutch colonial urbanization, the first phase of urbanization occurred after Indonesian
independence. It was, and this is my thesis, ‘urbanization without urbanism’. What
was the case for the larger cities of Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung and Medan until the
early 1990s still holds true for many of the small provincial or district capitals of
Indonesia today.
This weak concept of urbanism and the city was reflected in the administrative
setup of independent Indonesia after 1945. Though settlements could be elevated to
the status of kota raya, kota madya or kota administratif, the head of the city
administration, the wali kota, had more or less the same rights and obligations as a
bupati or district head. Up to now there is no Lord Mayor of Jakarta, but a Governor
as in any other province with four wali kota, or heads of the four districts making up
the special capital region (or actually province) of DKI Jakarta.

Urban involution
‘Weak Nusantara urbanism’ was further weakened by ‘urban involution’. Involution
means ‘more of the same’, i.e. complexity increases without evolutionary change, let
alone revolutionary change (Evers and Korff, 2004). During the 1960s and 70s the
occupational structure of Indonesia’s urban population did not change much in terms
of economic sectors (Evers, 1972). The service sector remained solidly petty trade
dominated. More markets were opened and more small-scale trades thronged into the
cities. More and more goods of the same type were sold by more and more small
traders of the same category and more government servants were housed in
government housing estates of the same type. Involution has also hampered the
development of a clearly demarcated social structure. Gavin Jones alleges that despite
urban sprawl and the growth of mega cities, no ‘real urban proletariat’ has developed
(Jones, 2002) and Solvay Gerke shows that the emerging middle class in Indonesia
was based on middle class symbols rather than on solid wage incomes or accumulated
wealth (Gerke, 2000).
Ethnicity constitutes another element of involution. Ethnic diversity has increased
with urbanization, funnelled by in-migration. Though rural areas can also have an
ethnically diverse population, ethnic groups tend to claim distinct territories. In cities
we can also observe tendencies towards segregation into ethnic quarters, like China

3
town or little India. Seen as a whole there is a tendency that a city has more ethnic
groups within its limits than surrounding rural areas. Segregated areas are reproducing
elements of each group, creating an involuted ethnic mosaic of distinct, but similarly
patterned areas, organized by speech group, ethnicity, occupation and district or even
village of origin. As Bruner (1961) has shown in his classic study of Medan, North
Sumatra, there has even been intensification of Batak adat and of the sense of Batak
ethnic identity in the city during the Sukarno period.
With the end of involution ethnic and regional separatism declines, larger areas
evolve and class may become more important than ethnicity as a principle of
structuring urban areas, as I have shown in an earlier paper (Evers, 1984b). During the
census of 2000, the first time ethnicity was enumerated, Jakarta still had ten ethnic
groups claiming a membership of more than 20.000 inhabitants each (see Table 2) and
many other smaller groups.

Ethnic Group Number Percentage

Javanese 2,927,340 35.16
Betawi 2,301,587 27.65
Sundanese 1,271,531 15.27
Chinese 460,002 5.53
Batak 300,562 3.61
Minangkabau 264,639 3.18
Malay 134,477 1.62
Buginese 49,426 0.59
Madurese 47,055 0.57
Bantenese 20,582 0.25
Bajarese 7,977 0.1
Others 539,529 6.48
Total 8,324,707 100.01
Source: Suryadinata et al. 2003.

Table 2. Major ethnic groups in Jakarta, Census 2000.

Though the population of Jakarta still admits to membership in a multitude of

ethnic groups, there appears to be a growing identification with Jakarta as the home
city. This new trend will be discussed below.

The cultural construction of urbanism

Urbanization and the construction of virtual urbanism are reflected in buildings,
monuments, places, street names and other architectural artefacts. Only some have
meaning for the urban population or its rulers. These artefacts often remain even
during urban renewal when the process of urbanization moves on. Looking back we
have, therefore, to engage in a sort of ‘archaeology of meaning’.

4
 Urban Involution Growth of Urbanism
National Independence: Unity in Globalization Reform and
Level Nation diversity and rapid decentralization
building urbanization
Urban and Jakarta: Jakarta: Jabotabek: Re-invention of
local level Nationalist, Sanscritization Mega city local traditions
third world Local development
symbols and urbanism:
monuments standardized
cultural
symbols

Table 3. The growth of urbanism in Indonesia.

The legacy of weak Nusantara (island Southeast Asia) urbanism, urban involution,
the post-colonial state and the general decline of economic conditions after
independence prevented the growth of genuine urbanism. Faced with the task of
nation building and with capturing the leadership of the non-aligned movement,
President Sukarno needed an urban centre of power, a capital city of the new
independent centralized state. It was plainly unthinkable to have a capital city without
urbanism, without the institution of a world city! Failing the knowledge and economic
resources to physically construct a new capital, Sukarno and his political elite opted
for a ‘theatre state’1 solution, building what Peter Nas (1993) has called a ‘city full of
symbols’. As Abeyasekere puts it in her history of Jakarta, the Sukarno government
was good at symbolism but rather poor in providing the facilities necessary to run a
world class city (Abeyasekere, 1987).

Figure 1. National Monument, Jakarta.

1
Clifford Geertz used the term to describe the pre-colonial Balinese state. Other authors have used the
term to refer to Old Order Indonesia.

5
 Jakarta became, as I should like to call it, a ‘city without urbanism’. By placing
monuments at significant intersections or places, ‘virtual urbanism’ was created. The
capital of Indonesia was symbolically constructed by huge monuments, like the
freedom fighter, carrying the flame of liberating Irian from colonial rule, or a tall
tower with a golden flame (National Monument, Monas, see Figure 1), housing a
museum at its base (MacDonald, 1995; Nas, 2004).
Urban anthropologists have speculated that this depiction in the basement of the
sacrifice of national heroes during the independence struggle could be linked to
ancestor worship, or to the world axis (paku alam) of Hindu-Javanese mythology
(Nas, 1993). A more far-fetched argument might suggest a connection to the sacrifice
of a slave under the town pole (lak muang) in Bangkok through which the city was
established and safeguarded against otherworldly attacks.

Figure 2. Revolutionary hero, Denpasar.

Later a monument for the generals murdered in 1995 in a coup attempt, which
brought General Suharto to power. Later a pleasure garden (Taman Mini), depicting
the whole of Indonesia was built by Suharto’s wife to symbolize the unity of
culturally diverse Indonesia. The details of this process have been aptly documented
by Dutch urban sociologist Peter Nas (1993, 1995), who studied the urban symbolic
ecology of Jakarta and other Indonesian towns. He showed, among other things, that
the nationally most significant monument (Monas) was put in the centre, the next line
of monuments of national significance are found in a circle around Monas and the
Medan Merdeka, while lesser symbols formed an outer ring. This pattern resembles
the concentric model of the classical Javanese state. In other words the symbolic
ecology of Jakarta was a sign or indicator, linking the new centralized state of
Indonesia with the glorious pre-colonial state of Majapahit. Other cities constructed
similar meaningful monuments, ranging from pistol waving national heroes (see
Figure 2) to urban monuments connected to local incidences during the struggle for
independence.

6
The end of involution and the growth of urbanism
During the 1980s the four large Indonesian cities started to change together with many
other cities in Asia (Marcotullio, 2003). Industrialization got slowly under way in
Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya and Medan. The fruits of New Order capitalism became
visible in new housing estates for the emerging middle strata of Indonesian society
(Gerke, 2001), elite quarters with heavily guarded enclaves and shopping centres,
malls and department stores catering for the new tastes of the upper and middle
classes and their demand for upmarket local and international goods. In Jakarta a new
shopping belt extended from the old Chinese area of Glodok to Blok M in Kebayoran
Baru. International Hotels and new business towers created the new CBD (central
business district) of Jakarta.

Figure 3. Arjuna Monument, Jakarta.

During the very early stages of this globalization, the new urbanism was glossed
over by a symbolism of the pre-colonial past, as if the elite were afraid to face the
challenges of globalization whilst loosing the connection to the Javanese past that had
hitherto been the source of their aspiration. Modern buildings were given names
derived from Sanskrit or old Javanese: Arthaloka, Bina Graha, Ariyaduta, Graha
Purna Yudha, Devi Ruji are some examples of building names found in ‘neo-
classical’ Jakarta (Evers and Korff, 2004). Actually the change of name from Batavia
to Jakarta, derived from Jayakarta was the beginning of the ‘Sanscritization’ of the
Indonesian capital. The last Hindu-Javanese monument that was built in Jakarta was a
large figure of Arjuna (Figure 3) riding in a chariot and obstructing traffic on the
eastern side of Jakarta’s Medan Merdeka (Freedom Square).
In the provincial capitals this symbolic return to local traditions created a strange
marriage between modern architecture and traditional forms of art.

7
A modern looking cone houses a museum to commemorate the capture of Yogyakarta
by the revolutionary troops under General Sudirman (Monumen Yogya Kembali, see
Figure 4). Suharto, a rather insignificant officer is given a major role in the museum,
which in turn is locally interpreted as a modern version of mount Meru, the global
mountain of Hindu-Javanese mythology, surrounded by the oceans in the guise of
several ponds. Furthermore the Museum building stands in line with mythtical
volcano Merapi, the tugu (end of the ritual road of procession) and the palace of the
Sultan of Yogyakarta (see Nas and Sluis, 2002). After all, Yogyakarta was the first
short-lived capital of independent Indonesia and is, like Jakarta, a ‘special region’
(daerah istimewa).

Figure 4. Monument ‘Yogya Kembali’, Yogyakarta.

In Padang, capital of West-Sumatra, modern buildings were topped with rural

Minangkabau roofs (Colombijn, 1994; Evers, 1993, Evers and Korff, 2004) (Figure 5)
In Denpasar a new administrative district (Renon) was constructed in modernized
Balinese architecture, including a huge multi-purpose building in the form of a Hindu-
Balinese temple. In Yogyakarta street names were written in Javanese exciting and
baffling international tourists and in Jakarta the Governor promoted the ‘Betawiness
of the local population’ (Knorr, 2002). This ‘manipulated symbolism’ (Macdonald
1995), this marriage of modernity and localism created a ‘hybrid space’ in many
urban areas of Indonesia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. The Malay Middle Eastern
Symbolism of the new administrative capital of Putrajaya located in the modern
Multimedia Super Corridor of Malaysia’s emerging knowledge society provides a
vivid example of this trend (Boey, 2002; Menkhoff, Evers and Chay, 2005).

8
Figure 5. Bank building, Padang, West Sumatra.

After the break-through of urbanism the construction of monuments more or less

ceased. With a CBD, international banks, theatres, cocktail lounges and shopping
malls, the new gained urbanism was sufficiently documented and symbolized. Instead
of a withdrawal from reality and a virtual construction of a capital city, Jakarta had
now joined the league of world cities (Sassen, 1991). A recent event demonstrates the
new role of Jakarta as a global city. On July 23, 2005 Monas (the national
monument), the once powerful symbol of nationalism and national unity on Jakarta’s
Medan Merdeka (Freedom Square) was changed into a symbol of a global city. The
event was reported in the Jakarta Post (24-07-05) as follows:

‘A touch of glamour has been lent to the National Monument (Monas) park –
already home to deer and coloured pigeons- with the opening on Saturday
night of a fountain that emulates the Las Vegas Bellagio fountains. With music
and choreographed laser beams, the Rp 26 billion fountain… accompanies
Monas, the city’s principal landmark, a 132-meter-high column topped with a
glittering flame’.

It was further reported that the fountain uses German technology and features 14
different songs of mainly Betawi origin, like Kopi Dandut, Lenggak-lenggok Jakarta
and Ampar-ampar Pisang – rather than the national anthem, Padamu Negri or other
nationalist songs. Betawi songs, German technology, American-style fountain
together symbolize the global city with a local touch, rather than the national capital
of a struggling postcolonial nation.

Conclusion and outlook

Urbanism has arrived in Indonesia and is slowly pervading the urban hierarchy. Some
provincial cities still have a long way to go. They are still kotadesa (urban villages)

9
rather than cities in their own right. Decentralization is bringing local culture the
forefront and defunct rajas and their nobility may re-emerge, demanding symbolic
representation.
In the mega cities the virtual construction of urbanism and with it the actual
construction of large symbolic urban monuments has come to an end. Of course urban
symbolism will be continued, but in a different form. Multi-storeyed shopping centres
and office blocks, high-rise office towers (like the twin towers in KL) and post-
modern laser shows will suffice as symbols of ‘real urbanism’.
By instituting a policy of administrative and fiscal decentralization the Indonesian
government has changed Jakarta from a symbol of national unity to a mere capital of a
democratizing state. Foreign investment is flowing in, multinational corporations set
up their offices and urban planning starts to structure urban space. Jakarta has joined
the rank of world cities who’s CBDs are knowledge hubs connected world-wide by
ICT. It shares the glory and the dark side of similar cities in Asia: the slums,
insufficient infra-structure, rapid population growth and, as some observers claim,
ungovernability.

References
Abeyasekere, Susan (1987) Jakarta: A History. Singapore: Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, W.R. and T.McGee. 1980. ‘A Theory of Urban Involution.’ In: H.-D.
Evers (ed.), Sociology of Southeast Asia, pp. 220-234. Kuala Lumpur,Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bruner, E.M. (1961) ‘Urbanizaion and Ethnic Identity in North Sumatra.’ In:
American Anthropologist, vol. 63, pp. 508-521.
Clammer, J. (2003) ‘Globalisation, Class, Consumption and Civil Society in South-
East Asian Cities.’ In: Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 403-419.
Colombijn, F. (1994) Patches of Padang: The History of an Indonesian Town in the
Twentieth Century and the Use of Urban Space. Leiden: Research School CNWS,
Leiden University.
Evers, H.-D. (1972) Urban Involution: the Social Development of Southeast Asian
Towns. Working Paper No. 2, Department of Sociology, University of Singapore.
Singapore.
Evers, H.-D. (1974) ‘Involusi Kota: Struktur Sosial Kota-Kota Asia Tenggara-Suatu
Kasus Kota Padang.’ Prisma, vol. 3, pp. 73-80.
Evers, H.-D. (1984a) ‘Cities as a ‘Field of Anthropological Studies’ in Southeast
Asia’. In: P.E. de Josselin de Jong (ed.), Unity in Diversity: Indonesia as a Field
of Anthropological Study, pp. 143-151. Dordrecht-Holland/Cinnaminson: Foris
Publications.
Evers, Hans-Dieter (1984b) ‘Urban Landownership, Ethnicity and Class in Southeast
Asian Cities.’ In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 8,
pp. 481-496.
Evers, H.-D. (1987) ‘The Bureaucratization of Southeast Asia.’ In: Comparative
Studies in Society and History, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 666-685.
Evers, H.-D. (1993) ‘Images of a Sumatran Town: Padang and the Rise of Urban
Symbolism in Indonesia.’ In: P.J.M. Nas (ed.), Urban Symbolism, pp. 78-91.
Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Evers, H.-D. and S. Gerke (1997) ‘Global Market Cultures and the Construction of
Modernity in Southeast Asia.’ Thesis Eleven, vol. 50, pp. 1-14.
Evers, H.-D. and R. Korff (2004). Southeast Asian Urbanism: The Meaning and
Power of Social Space. Münster, New York, Singapore: LIT/ISEAS.

10
 Geertz, C. (1963) Agricultural Involution: Processes of Ecological Change in
Indonesia. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Gerke, S. 2000. ‘Global Lifestyles under Local Conditions: The New Indonesian
Middle Class.’ In: B.-H. Chua (ed.), Consumption in Asia: Lifestyles and
Indentities, pp. 135-158. London and New York: Routledge.
Gottdiener, M. (1995) Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of
Postmodern Life. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jones, G.W. (2002) ‘Southeast Asian Urbanization and the Growth of Mega-Urban
Regions.’ In: Journal of Population Research, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 119-136.
Knorr, J. (2002) ‘Tradition versus Modernity: The Orang Betawi and Betawi-ness in
Jakarta.’ In: Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, vol. 127, pp. 203-221.
Marcotullio, P.J. (2003) ‘Globalisation, Urban Form and Environmental Conditions in
Asia-Pacific Cities.’ In: Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 219-247
Menkhoff, T., H.-D. Evers, and Yue Wah Chay (2005). Governing and Managing
Knowledge in Asia. Singapore and London: World Scientific.
McGee, T.G. (1967) The Southeast Asian City: A Social Geography of the Primate
Cities of Southeast Asia. London, G. Bell.
Macdonald, G.M. (1995) ‘Indonesia's Medan Merdeka: National Identity and the
Built Environment.’ In: Antipode, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 270-293.
Nas, Peter J.M. 1993. ‘Jakarta, City Full of Symbols: An Essay in Symbolic Ecology.’
In: P.J.M. Nas (ed.), Urban Symbolism, pp. 13-37. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Nas, Peter J.M. (1995) ‘The image of Denpasar: About urban symbolism between
tradition and tourism’. In: P.J.M. Nas (ed.), Issues in urban development. Case
studies from Indonesia, pp. 164-192. Research School CNWS, Leiden,.
Nas, Peter J.M. (2004) ‘De Bezielde stad: Urbane symboliek in Indonesië.’ Inaugurale
rede bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar. Leiden.
Nas, Peter J.M. and Rijnt Sluis (2002) ‘In Search of Meaning: Urban Orientation
Principles in Indonesia.’ In: P.J.M. Nas (ed.), The Indonesian Town Revisited, pp.
130-146. Munster/Singapore: LIT Verlag/ISEAS.
Nas, Peter J.M. and Welmoet Boender (2002) ‘The Indonesian City in Urban Theory.’
In: Peter J.M. Nas (ed.), The Indonesian Town Revisited, pp. 3-16. Münster:
LIT/ISEAS.
Sassen, Saskia (1991) The Global City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Suryadinata, L., E.N. Arifin, et al. (2003) Indonesia’s Population: Ethnicity and
Religion in a Changing Political Landscape. Singapore: ISEAS.
Yeung, Y.M. and C.P. Lo (eds.) (1976) Changing Southeast Asian Cities: Readings
on Urbanization. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

11

View publication stats