contributed by Antonia Tungel and Inaka S. Kartika, 15 August 2023

How This All Began …

In the cold season in November 2022, we met in a virtual tandem class created by our collaborating departments – the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the University of Freiburg, Germany, and the Department of Anthropology at Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia. We remember clearly how we, two unexperienced undergraduate students, decided to research the authority and agency of supernatural entities in tackling Covid-19. This research was conducted under the topic of ‘human-environment relations’ discussed during the seminar.  Because of the distance separating us physically during the pandemic, we were guided by our collaborating professors to study within our present surroundings, resulting in two research locations: Freiburg, Germany and Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Because the research was conducted in such diverse cultural backgrounds, we expected to find apparent differences, and were then surprised by the actual similarities: In Yogyakarta as well as in Freiburg, the understanding and treatment of Covid-19 is in no way homogenous; understandings are varied and internally contested. In both research locations, the inclusion of supernatural entities (like ancestors, God/s, and spirits) in explaining and dealing with the pandemic results in an individual and collective negotiation process. This process aims to balance the, sometimes conflicting, understandings and instructions provided by governmental and religious/spiritual authorities. 

After this initial research we proposed a paper to delivery at the Asia Research Institute’s workshop on ‘Faith in Immunity: Religion, COVID-19 Vaccines, and Structures of Trust’ in order to develop our ideas with a broader and more experienced group of scholars. This led to a second research project, in which we investigated the interplay of secular and spiritual knowledge, possible knowledge hierarchies, and how they are negotiated within our research participants.  In our previous research, we found that ‘objective’ secular knowledge, usually seen as scientific, is often privileged over so-called ‘subjective’ spiritual understandings and approaches. Furthermore, the power of supernatural or more-than-human agents for health and healing is often dismissed.

In order to explore these ideas, we interviewed three young people in Yogyakarta, Indonesia (aged 20-30) who combine their religiosity with spiritual beliefs. They all consider their spiritual practices as salutary and eventually more beneficial and sustainable than biomedical approaches. However, they also do not reject scientific knowledge and choose to combine vaccines and biomedicine with their individual spiritual practices. In doing so, they somehow contest the environment that projects ‘secularity’ as equal with ‘modernity’ and thus rejects spiritual approaches as ‘anti-modern’.

This research was conducted when we were not in each other’s presence. We thought that considering our situation, the most accessible research method for us to use is to divide the work. One of us focused on the theoretical framing, while the other conducted the independent research. We collected our data through in-depth interviews with our research participants. We also asked for their daily lives as captured in their personal photos and videos to understand them further. 

What We Have Found

Our research participants each had different approaches to health and healing and different ways to narrate their conceptualizations. They identify different factors and actors as relevant or powerful in the process of sickness and recovery and connect these (re)sources as an additional aid to biomedical approaches. Yet, they all agree on a prevalence and interpretational sovereignty of something they call “Western thinking”. They perceive it as “intellectual” yet “simplistic” thinking, because it reduces a reality that is far more complex and multidimensional. In their perception, reality also includes non-measurable, intangible, “spiritual” worlds and phenomena that are left out by Western thought.

The intangible entities recognized by our participants vary. One participant, a 30-year-old Javanese male who quit his job to travel around Indonesia, encountered various spiritual teachers during his journey that he understands as a source of epistemic authority. Influenced by kinesiology and experiences with vipassana meditation, he especially identifies his own body as a powerful agent of its own and a carrier of superior intelligence. Conversing with the body means inviting the body to speak and our mind to listen carefully. In his opinion, “all diseases are related to body relationships”, so maintaining good health requires honest and attentive “body dialogues”.

“So, when you get a vaccine,” he says, “ask permission from your body first. Ask permission by saying something like: ‘O body, I want to get vaccinated. Be good. I need this so that we can get around more easily. I know you are strong. Just explain it.” Engaging in this dialogue, he says, can also prevent possible side effects from “the negative ingredients in vaccines,” as in his opinion, they will not harm the body if we recognize and believe in its inherent power and intelligence.

Another research participant (a 22-year-old male) describes himself as a “negligent servant to God”.  He is convinced of the existence of a “power beyond” his understanding, and is “sensitive” towards the “jinn and intangible creatures that are around us,” yet he does not necessarily follow either Islam or Kejawen (a Javanese spiritual/animistic tradition) interpretations strictly. He links his health and quick recovery from Covid both to the “power of thoughts” (the desire to heal quickly) and it being a gift from God.

Another participant, a 23-years-old male, seeks health and healing in connecting with his concept of “Mother Nature,” interpreting rivers, mountains, and oceans as coherent agents of their own. These ‘natural agents’ are “teachers” that can provide knowledge and healing, and functions as a retreat from “the crazy house” that is the city. In his opinion, people living in closer relation with nature (“people in the village”) are healthier and wiser, because they are more connected to the “wisdom” of nature, their ancestors, and their “traditional Javanese culture”.

Interestingly, none of our research participants, although formally Muslim, call God ‘Allah’ when referring to their personal conceptions of the supreme being. Participants used the Indonesian term Tuhan - a ‘neutral’ description not related to a specific religion -, and the name Gusti which explicitly references the pre-Islamic Javanese belief systems. By choosing such wording, they all mitigate the formal religious interpretation of Islam and mark the assimilation with individual spiritual comprehensions, as expressed by one of the participants: “Religion is like wearing clothes. it can be too big or it can be too small. But spirituality is what fits you. It’s something that you choose, based on your observations, as an adult, and you choose what you want to believe. (...) I mix and match from whatever is good.”

All of our research participants are vaccinated. Yet, all of them label biomedicine as “Western medicine” in contrast to a plant-based “traditional medicine” or spiritual healing practices such as breathwork or meditation, which they consider to be more “natural”, “sustainable” and eventually healthier. Biomedicine, for them, is a “quick solution” which is sometimes required because “humans are asked to be functional towards the environment,” or just don’t have or take the time it would need to heal properly.

However, in the opinion of one participant, this has a backlash effect: “Take a pill, it’s not even five seconds and it’s done. But if it’s instant, it’s definitely not going to be sustainable. It must have side effects because the core problem is not addressed.” As all participants seem to share this assessment - contrasting an instant yet superficial ‘Western’ cure with a more wholesome and lasting spiritual health practice -, they choose to mix both approaches in tackling Covid-19: Be it out of convenience, confidence, or just because it reassures other peoples and avoids conflict potential.

While one feels his “confidence” and safety increased by getting a Covid vaccination, the other states that he initially did not want to be vaccinated, but chose to do so to avoid arguments and criticism. In the interview, he rationalises his choice “to obey” by referring to the values of the culture he feels connected to. As Javanese, “we have to follow the rules. (...) In doing so, I did what our ancestors have made”. He frames this obedience as “Javanese nobility”.

He does not want to contribute to the “rioting and chaos” that disturbs social harmony, but explains: “People who dare to give in are noble. They are honoured. And giving in does not mean losing”. The other research participant comments on his decision rather laconically: “The vaccine is only 50% probability. Spirituality is only 50% probability. So, if I take both, I have 100%.”

“The vaccine” is perceived by our participants as part of a foreign (knowledge) system, even though not all available vaccinations are produced in ‘the West’ (e.g. Sinovac). It is portrayed as an “instant” yet only superficial treatment that is connected to a larger epistemic set - the “intellectual West” in contrast to a more “empathetic” Eastern wisdom that is “rich with tradition” and “spiritual intelligence”. While not all participants emphasise the imagined inherent difference with such strong words, one of them states:

“I believe that people in Jogja or maybe in the archipelago [of Indonesia] have great DNA. Our ancestors were very great ancestors. [But now] we are too busy moving towards the West, but forget about the East… If the East is rich with tradition, the West is intellectual. Maybe that’s where we can actually borrow or follow or accept what’s in the West. But, don’t forget what’s in the East. The East is traditional, the East is actually the beginning. If you look at the sun, it all starts with the East”. In his opinion, the “spiritual intelligence” and “deep values and meanings” that he detects in ‘Indonesian culture’ are perceptions that “Westerners” don’t have, and they form resources of wealth that have to be recognized and defended by the Indonesian people themselves.

Also, another research participant emphasises the need to re-value local knowledge: “Between Western science and Eastern science, Eastern science is underestimated. But I think now our generation is starting to change this. We have started to explore our culture”.They both criticise an increased “Westernization” of education. But while one perceives local culture and ‘traditional knowledge’ as the ‘true’ source of knowledge that can be occasionally extended by ‘Western’ insights, the other pleads for a mutually beneficial braiding.

“We can borrow from the West, but don’t forget what’s in the East. (...) The main door to education is culture. From [our] culture, we learn about ethics. About feelings. And in [our] culture there is still oral literature, manuscripts, local wisdom, rituals, traditional knowledge, traditional tools and technology, (...) cultural products. Education is actually from there; it is the navel. Culture is cultivation; cultivating the mind from within”.

“Western science is logic. Eastern science is empathy. Is it wrong to use logic? No... Is it wrong to use empathy alone? No... But it's not entirely right. Because we must know the function of logic and the function of empathy. The function of logic is clear, to determine and distinguish. This is a balloon, this is a chair, this is a table... It's obvious that it's logical. But when it comes to empathy, sometimes we can just say, ‘I don't think this is just a chair, I think I can use this as a painting board.’ That's already a very advanced science, you know... It uses empathy. Logic and empathy cannot be separated. Because when they are combined, we will have virtue. We can be wise”.

Reflecting on the statements of our participants in terms of knowledge hierarchization, it seems they differentiate between ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ knowledge as well as ‘biomedicine’ and ‘spiritual’ health practices linked to intangible agents such as Nature, body, spirits, God. While one frames this ‘Eastern knowledge’ as ancient ‘wisdom’ rooted in a culturally inherent “spiritual intelligence,” the other actually terms it as “science” - thus equalling the different ‘systems’ in their validity. ‘Western’ knowledge, for them, is inseparably linked with intellectualism and efficiency, yet perceived as less wholesome and eventually deficient. While one thus seeks health and healing in ‘Eastern wisdom’ and takes on biomedical approaches out of rather socially practical and utilitarian considerations, the other understands a braiding of those knowledge systems as a ‘counterbalance’: A mutual supplementation of what the other is lacking.

While our research participants tend to portray ‘the West’ as a homogeneous sphere of secular intellectualism, our previous research taught us that also ‘in the West’ we can encounter diverse epistemic (non-secular) traditions and heterogeneous approaches and understandings toward Covid-19.

In terms of treatment and prevention/healing strategies, this supposed dichotomy leads to a more or less reluctant acceptance of biomedical approaches such as vaccination. They are considered as belonging to another ‘epistemic sphere’ that is different and external to their personal and/or cultural knowledge. Yet, these approaches sometimes braid and overlap, as reflected in this statement of the participant who connects his health to the power of thought: “Yes, I was vaccinated. It means I'm stronger after this. (...) If I believe in the vaccine, my mentality is better. I'm more prepared to face Covid.”

Learning to Re-Learn

Now, we thought that this time our collaborative research process would be as easy as when we conducted it in physically separate locations during our tandem class. Well, well! We were completely wrong! When we were reflecting on our process, we learned that our decision to divide the work in this research led to serious disadvantages. The fact that one person focused on the theoretical framing and the other on the actual fieldwork made the results rather inconsistent.  Adding to that, we put so much trust into each other that we did not properly re-analyze what the other has done. This process taught us to approach collaborative work differently in the future. We think that we need to mutually reflect more on every step, even though it takes more time.

Furthermore, when reflecting on our own positionality, we noticed that, just like our participants, we sometimes also still subconsciously dichotomize between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ knowledge systems in our wording and conceptualizations. Thus, we partly contribute to the ongoing division into two homogenous and separate spheres.

However, we learned that researching and writing together is an enriching and rewarding experience as we share our perspectives, our knowledge, and how we critically examine our research and write up the results. We would also like to send a little love letter to our fellow undergraduate researchers-in-the-making and encourage them to understand, that our processes and even mistakes are not something to be ashamed of, rather they are completely valuable as they make us continuously curious, reflect endlessly, and push us to be more sensitive towards our positionalities and perceptions. We would also like to send our gratitude to our associates in the workshop who were inquisitive towards our paper and shared constructive criticism. We hope that in the future, our writing will always keep on progressing towards an unbiased reality beyond dichotomizations.

---

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the blog editorial team or the Asia Research Institute.

South Asia | Southeast Asia | East Asia | Other Places | Hinduism | Buddhism | Islam | Christianity | Other Religions

back to project's homepage