The famous cultural thinker Clifford Geertz (1980) once described what he called the “theatre state”, referring to the situation of 19th century Bali.
By
Idi Subandy Ibrahim
·5 minutes read
The political communication culture of a country can be seen from how the political elite use resources to build an image in the minds of its citizens. In the transitional history of this country, "visual rhetoric" through media in the public sphere has long been part of the competition of the political elite to establish their image. In fact, the visual warfare is often more exciting than debate in the legislature rooms. The spread of images of politicians on social media and billboards is far more captivating than their real track record in the field.
One of the main points that Benjamin Barber discusses in his influential book, Jihad Vs McWorld, is that communication technologies (audio, visual, film, print and electronic) inevitably have an impact on culture and politics and the attitudes that shape them. Barber coins the term the “infotainment telesector”, the relationship between technology, news and entertainment, “which creates and controls the world of signs and symbols.”
In fact, the political elites now also often show wealth reports on their social media channels.
The famous cultural thinker Clifford Geertz (1980) once described what he called the “theatre state”, referring to the situation of 19th century Bali. The advancement in communication technology and visual engineering in the 21st century have further confirmed the contemporary relevance of this view. In traditional theatrical states, the elite build symbols of power through rituals, performances, festivals and ceremonies to maintain charisma and obedience. In a theatrical state in the era of political neo-liberalization, various activities such as state meetings or the family activities of "important people" that were previously private need to be staged either through official media or Youtube, Instagram or Twitter channels. In fact, the political elites now also often show wealth reports on their social media channels. Apparently, the era of political spectacle has strengthened the close relationship between wealth and power.
For Geertz, politics can also be seen as a struggle around the meaning of symbols. Politics is defined as a drama in which a game of symbols takes place. Symbols in political life cannot be separated from culture and political behavior itself. Symptoms of political competition are seen as the art of acting symbolically. In the visual age, politics is commonly seen as a performing art.
It reminds us of the art of politics and the politics of art. For some artists or cultural observers, perhaps "art (for) politics" narrows the meaning of art because politics is seen as manipulating art for the purpose of political power. Hasn't there been a clash between the "art for art" and "art for politics" groups in the history of this country's journey? However, shouldn't art politics also be used for the purpose of fighting against political decadence? Isn't political campaigning also often interspersed with dangdut (genre of Indonesian folk music), while some politicians love to sing, and artists flock to politics? The symptoms of celebrity politics and politics becoming a stage for an artist/entertainment (politicotainment) are common.
Even if political communication is driven by the affordability and easy access of social media for marketing political images, when digital platforms are taken over by a handful of big businesses efforts to popularize political images will have a commercial dimension.
If politics is defined as the art of influencing and winning people's hearts, no doubt political visualization will become an all-out hunt for parties and politicians. Therefore, efforts to popularize politics will increasingly become an arena for political commercialization. Even if political communication is driven by the affordability and easy access of social media for marketing political images, when digital platforms are taken over by a handful of big businesses efforts to popularize political images will have a commercial dimension.
Therefore, whether you like it or not, the engineers of social media algorithms will always try to guide and recommend your tastes and political and lifestyle choices. If a critical attitude is not developed, the growing political culture will encourage high-cost democratic practices and citizens will only be seen as political consumers.
Post-pandemic politics shows that the hunt for visual images increasingly requires no small amount of capital resources and at the same time illustrates the sociopolitical gap itself. People are just spectators. Aren't all politicians able to display large photo banners on public transportation or at various crossroads in cities in the country?
So far, the political elites have used the power of visual rhetoric to create dramatization and the impression of being close to the people. With the help of professional image consultants and photographers, images are created by manipulating visual and verbal powers. There are politicians who are described as firm, young people full of hope, guardians of Pancasila and the Unitary Republic of Indonesia, unifying the nation, close to farmers or looking like the most religious and clean politicians. The visualization of the blusukan (impromptu visits), attending disaster locations, visiting people's homes or market operations, are no longer unique and new political breakthroughs.
The visual rhetorical intelligence of political actors will determine their success in building a "rhetoric of intimacy" with the public. First, the rhetoric of closeness of hope (emotional) – if they are able to capture the hope that lives in the community and translate it into a political symbol. Second, the rhetoric of the proximity of the problem (rational) – if they are able to understand the real problems faced by the community and translate them into verbal and visual language and provide realistic solutions to these problems.
We can learn from President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, who until now continues to build a rhetoric of closeness with the community through "bicycle gifts" on various occasions. Who would have thought that a man from Surakarta who always wears simple clothes and often goes down the drain while rolling up his sleeves, with this impression repeatedly in the media, would suddenly create a new visual rhetoric and political language of “blusukan” – and later become the number one person in this country?
Perhaps it cannot be ignored that visual rhetoric is directed as a struggle to build people's imagination and fantasy. With that fantasy, they build hopes for the leader and his future.
SALOMO TOBING
Idi Subandy Ibrahim
IDI SUBANDY IBRAHIM, Cultural, Media, and Communication Researcher; and Postgraduate Lecturer at Pasundan University
(This article was translated by Hendarsyah Tarmizi)
