Clifford Geertz, The Region of Java (Chicago; The University of Chicago Press, 1960).
Reviewer: Yasuko Kobayashi (Aichi Gakusen University)
Discussant: Teruo Sekimoto (The University of Tokyo)

On March 6, 1999, the aforementioned study group session was held at Sophia University with over 20 active participants and ensuing energetic debate. Following is a study group report from Yuichi Akasaki (Graduate School of Hiroshima University). We at Unit 2-A plan to host study group sessions again in following year to review basic literatures on Islam in Southeast Asia. If you are interested, please contact Midori Kawashima (Sophia University).
(Midori Kawashima)

�@�@ This study group aims to promote the exchange and sharing of information among young researchers interested in Islam in Southeast Asia, passing beyond the boundaries of country-by-country studies. This time We utilized Geertz's 'The Religion of Java', which highly influenced the formation of the contemporary image ofJavanese Muslims, as our text. Ms. Yasuko Kobayashi reviewed Geertz's study, and reported how his study should be interpreted from a contemporary point of view. Geertz stresses the religious diversity of Java. He classified it into the following three cultural types, according to their religious beliefs, ethical preferences, and political ideologies. The Abangan variant are the peasants who have an animistic sense of religion, and many of them are supporters of the PKI. The Santri variant are mostly merchants who are fervent followers of Islam, and many of them are Masjumi, NU supporters. The Prijai variant are dominantly the white-collar people and their religious life is strongly colored by Hinduism, and many of them are supporters of the PNI. Ms. Kobayashi first explained the origins of the terms Santri and Abangan, and the historical background of the 1950's, when Geertz conducted his research. Then she pointed out the fact that Geertz 's research has depicted the characteristics of Javanese society, and that his work was highly evaluated for its independence from the traditional "Orientalist" approach. She also pointed out the fact that Geertz's study has been picked on by many fellow researchers for over 25 years, and she organized her personal criticism towards Geertz, in the following manner.
First is that while Santri and Abangan are categories that are based on the axis of religion, Prijaji is a term that indicates a social strata. Geertz also fails to reckon with the fact that Abangan could be a variant that might turn into Santri. Secondly, Geertz tends to favor diversity so much, that he overlooks the traditional rapport between Islam and Java Hindu. Thirdly, Islam has become deeply rooted in Java, and Geertz has made some mistakes due to his lack of a systematic knowledge of Islam. Further, she pointed out that Geertz's work has given the impression that the impact of Islam in Java was "of minor consequence", although he highly regards the role of the "Modernist". She contended that studies of Islam in Indonesia have placed too much emphasis on the "modernist", and that the "traditionalist " had not gained enough attention until the mid-80's. Now, how should we look at Geertz's studies from a contemporary point of view? First of all, it is a valuable ethnography if we take into consideration its historical context. The description of Abangan reveals many instances of the Javanese custom of Slametan, and the description of Santri indicates thedifficult path Indonesia has led during its nation building process, such as conflict between the "modernists" and"traditionalists", the confrontation of the Muslims with the PKI, the undeveloped status of the Ministry of Religious Affairs etc. On the other hand, she suggested that the Prijaji part has less value as an ethnographic record, when it is comparedwith the already mentioned parts. Secondly, she indicated that both the Abangan and the Prijaji are Muslims, and posed aquestion as to whether Geertz had perceived Abangan as an independent religion. In addition, she indicated that though his book has given the impression that only "modernists" have the spirit of progression, Geertz could have depicted the dynamism of the "traditionalist" more positively, since he values the role of the Kijai (religious teachers) in social reformation, in another article. Lastly, she added that the "re-Islamization" of Abangan had been a continuous process, since the time Geertz had conducted his research.
Mr. Sekimoto commented following Ms. Kobayashi's report as follows. He pointed out that the Javanese religion could not be generalized although Geertz successfully depicted the social and religious changes in Mojokto from a historical perspective, and that there exists a conscious and subjective Abangan ("Islam Jawa" in their language), within the framework of Islamic universalism vs. regionalism.
After his comments, inquiries flowed from participants one after another, particularly from Arab specialists, concerning the relationship between Indonesian Muslims and the Arab region, Indonesian Muslims' perception of Islam in the Arab region, and criticism of the convenient dualistic categorization of "modernists" and "traditionalists" that many researchers tend to use.

Geertz's study is indeed one of the most important works in the area of Javanese Islam. However, there already are many criticisms regarding his work, and by organizing these we were able to arrive at a common understanding, with regard to his evaluation. As for myself, I realized once again the need for further advancement in case studies focusing on particular regions of Java, in studying Islam in Indonesia. Geertz seems toperceive Slametan as something unique to East Java Islam, while on the other hand, he seems to be under the strong influence of his previous studies in Yogyakarta, in describing the Prijaji. This has remained a big question for myself. We plan to continue reviewing the basic literature concerning Islam in Southeast Asia, and further discussion is expected.
(Yuichi Akasaki)