Chair: Geoffrey B. Robinson, University of California, Los Angeles

The recent retirement of Professor Daniel S. Lev prompts consideration of his influence on the field of Southeast Asian studies and his contribution to the social sciences more broadly. Having undertaken his doctoral research in Indonesia in the early postcolonial period, Professor Lev emphasized the legacy of colonialism long before it became intellectually fashionable to do so. As intellectual currents in the social sciences shifted toward universalism, Professor Lev continued to insist on the importance of empirical specificity combined with historical sensitivity in social analysis and interpretation. This perspective helped shape the field of Southeast Asian studies as it developed in the second half of the twentieth century, while also acting as a check against too-narrow disciplinary methods. In recent years, while urging his students not to succumb to contemporary theoretical "trends," Professor Lev’s emphasis on historical empiricism has resulted in an insistence on specificity that coincides with rather than contradicts contemporary criticism of the meta-narrative from feminist and post-colonial theory. Professor Lev’s methodological rigor and commitment to highly grounded research has won him not only the respect of scholars from theoretically diverse fields but also has drawn to him students from across the globe. His influence on his students has been diverse. Some of his students have explicitly pursued his interest in the sociology of law, while others have tried to synthesize his insights with other contemporary approaches from anthropology to cultural studies. But all have produced work attentive to spacial and temporal specificities. This panel will feature some of the work of his (current and former) students, in an effort to highlight the broad scope of his influence.

Loren S. Ryter, University of Washington

Professor Lev’s dissertation, The Transition to Guided Democracy, illustrated the move away from parliamentary democracy to a state constitutionally centered on the presidency and in practice controlled by the military. He has continued to emphasize the roots of the New Order in Soekarno’s Guided Democracy. During this period too, a pattern of youth group mobilization shaped by the army also emerged which became further institutionalized during the New Order. This paper will explore the emergence of Pemuda Pancasila (Pancasila Youth) in North Sumatra during the 1960s. It will discuss the expression of presidential loyalty as a prerequisite for fighting for control of resources in the local economy, in this case largely control over black market sales of movie theater tickets. The paper will also discuss how recollections of Pemuda Pancasila’s role in "exterminating the PKI" (the Indonesian Communist Party) are uneasily situated within New Order nationalist narratives of struggle, while harboring within them personal demands for survival, particular resentments, and on occasion, regret. In touching upon the massacres of 1965–66 as recalled by actors involved, the paper aims to flesh out details of this period in a particular area about which little is known, while also exploring the social basis of the emergence of the New Order in the wake of slaughter.

Robin Bush, University of Washington

Professor Lev made a seminal contribution to the understanding of Islamic political institutions in Indonesia with Islamic Courts. Following in that tradition, this paper will examine the role of Islamic parties and organizations in redefining the political sphere in Indonesia post-Soeharto. Specifically, the paper will follow the maneuvers of the Nahdlatul Ulama during three historical periods—1952–84, when it existed first as its own political party and then as part of the PPP; 1984—Soeharto’s downfall, when in a move referred to as "Kembali ke Khittah 26" the NU withdrew from PPP and formal politics and redefined itself as a "social" organization; and finally the post-Soeharto era, when the NU-affiliated PKB (Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa) won third place in the national elections June 7, 1999 and when NU leader Abdurrahman Wahid was chosen to be the fourth President of Indonesia on October 20, 1999. The paper will explore the role of the NU in defining the political sphere in Indonesia in each of these historical periods, with special focus on the final transitional period during which a divided and diverse Muslim community has re-introduced the polemic on the syari’ah verses Pancasila as a basis for the Indonesian state—a topic to which Professor Lev has made important contributions. This paper will attempt to reflect Professor Lev’s attention to historical empiricism by providing rich detail and specificity in examining the internal dynamics of the Nahdlatul Ulama especially during this last period in which not only is the Indonesian state being re-formulated, but the political agenda and direction of the world’s largest Islamic organization is also undergoing reconstruction.

Elizabeth F. Drexler, University of Washington