Author: Nabil Fakhry

Student of the History and Islamic Civilization Study Program (SPI), Faculty of Adab and Humanities, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

Human life as a social being is always accompanied by a sense of solidarity, namely the desire to live within a collective social order. However, have you ever felt that solidarity can sometimes become a cage? You may have plans to move forward—joining a competition, completing assignments, or simply focusing on something that leads you toward a better direction—but you are considered disloyal to your friendship circle and may even end up being excluded. If you have ever experienced this, you are not alone. In fact, this phenomenon is not new. It was discussed almost a century ago by a literary figure and cultural thinker, Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana.

Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana, hereafter referred to as STA, was one of the central figures in the cultural polemic of 1935. In his article entitled “Toward a New Society and Culture,” published in the cultural magazine Pudjangga Baru in August 1935, he stated that culture is divided into two periods: the pre-Indonesian period before the nineteenth century and Indonesian culture in the twentieth century. According to him, pre-Indonesian culture was too heavily dominated by mystical and mythical elements, rigid customs, feudalism, and excessive solidarity. STA referred to these cultural patterns as static culture, which could hinder progress because, within such a culture, theoretical values, namely science and knowledge, and economic values, namely productivity, became very weak. Rational thought had not yet developed, and society was excessively influenced by emotion. Therefore, STA emphasized that modern Indonesian culture had to be different from the old culture.

One form of pre-Indonesian culture is solidarity. In STA’s view, solidarity may appear in the form of love, friendship, mutual cooperation, and strong group consciousness. Unfortunately, in the present era, these forms of solidarity are more often manifested in activities with minimal productivity, such as hanging out for hours without a clear purpose, vaping together as a ritual of “togetherness,” or playing online games together, which consumes time that could otherwise be used for studying or working. These activities may indeed strengthen the emotional bonds within a group. However, just as STA warned, such bonds do not provide space for theoretical values, namely knowledge, or economic values, namely productivity, to grow. Solidarity, in its excessive form, actually preserves stagnation rather than encouraging individual or collective progress.

If solidarity within a friendship circle alone can hinder the development of one’s theoretical and economic values, then what about solidarity that is rooted more deeply, such as family relationships? STA highlighted that family or kinship ties are the strongest form of solidarity because they are wrapped in morality and a sense of indebtedness. Many people feel restricted from choosing their own path in life, such as in education, career, or other life choices, because their decisions are considered inconsistent with family expectations. This is where the irony of solidarity lies: the deeper the bond, the greater its potential to become a cage for someone who wishes to grow.

Although STA was critical of the dominance of solidarity in static culture, he did not completely reject this value. For him, solidarity remains one of the basic values that shape culture. It is an integrative force that unites the energies within the individual and society, serves as the foundation of the family institution, and functions as a moral compass that prevents human beings from becoming entirely selfish. STA even noted that solidarity actually grows strongly in modern democratic countries, showing that this value is not merely an old cultural inheritance that must be discarded. The problem does not lie in solidarity itself, but in how it is manifested. STA emphasized that solidarity needs to be reconstructed in accordance with the demands of the times. Mutual cooperation, for instance, should evolve into a more efficient form of collaboration within a complex social system, rather than remaining merely a stagnant ritual of togetherness. In other words, solidarity will become optimal when it is balanced with progressive values, namely knowledge and economic productivity, rather than simply being eliminated.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether we should be solidaristic or individualistic. Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana himself did not demand that people leave their friendship circles or cut ties with their families in the name of “progress.” What he offered was a way of rethinking: healthy solidarity should become a space that helps people grow, not a cage that makes them smaller. It should be present to support you in the process of becoming better, not to demand that you stop simply because you are considered out of step with others. So, if one day you feel restricted by the sense that you “must be solid”—whether with friends, family, or any group—perhaps it is time to ask yourself: what kind of solidarity are you actually maintaining?

References:

Damanhuri, T., & Fattah, G. (2024). Memaknai Kembali Konsep Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana dalam Konteks Politik Kebudayaan Nasional Indonesia. Widyacarya.

Anzaikhan, M., et al. (2025). Filsafat Nilai dan Transformasi Sosial: Perspektif Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana. Al-Widad.

Rusmiati, E. (2003). Humanisme dalam Pemikiran Kebudayaan Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana: Suatu Kajian Filosofis. Unpublished thesis. Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.

Ministry of Education and Culture. (n.d.). Polemik Kebudayaan. Retrieved from https://esi.kemdikbud.go.id/wiki/Polemik_Kebudayaan

Image Sources:

https://1001indonesia.net/sutan-takdir-alisjahbana-sastrawan-pelopor-angkatan-pujangga-baru/

https://ar.inspiredpencil.com/pictures-2023/solidarity-hands