This
article first appeared in Subud Canada’s national newsletter, SCAN (editor,
Kumari Beck), in early 1998, as part of a feature on the role of the Subud
Press. At the Spokane World Congress the previous summer, apart from one
conspicuous instance of censorship, there seemed to be a freer atmosphere and a
movement towards more open communications, both within Subud and between Subud
and the outside world. Many of us were hopeful that the winds of change were
gathering momentum. I leave it to the reader to judge whether we have made any
progress since then towards a more open, honest, and normal functioning of the
press in Subud.
The Role of the Subud Press:
Some of the Questions
Click this link to read the PDF VERSION of
this article
Click this link to SEND FEEDBACK on the article
Click this link to VIEW FEEDBACK on the author's articles
At the
World Congress last summer in Spokane, the fourth and final issue of the
Congress newsletter, Gee-wa, was confiscated by Congress
authorities because its editor, Michael Menduno, refused to make certain
requested changes. There has already been a lot of discussion in print about
whether this action was justified. Many of us have a gut reaction to the kind
of censorship that is imposed from above: it feels repressive, patronizing,
dangerously undemocratic, etc. etc. At the same time, in this case there were a
lot of complicating factors. What sort of mandate did Michael have? What kind
of newsletter was he supposed to produce? Who was he responsible to: the
Congress organizing committee or Subud members attending the Congress? Who was
the intended readership: Subud members and their families? The population of
Spokane? The world? And of these, whose opinion ought to matter the most? It
seems likely that a lack of clarity around these questions contributed to the
confrontation.
In a
sense it is now all water under the bridge. But the incident has got a lot of
us thinking about the role of the press in Subud.
As far
as I know, we have no publications that function the way an ordinary newspaper
does. If our ISC and WSA leaders were taking political office in the outside
world, there would be articles in the daily papers about what strengths and
weaknesses they bring to their jobs, and critiques and commentary on their
speeches and actions. Perhaps because Subud offices are mostly unpaid, this
kind of assessment might seem inappropriate and ungrateful. But in some
respects, a detached, analytical approach might have a lot to offer, especially
where there are problems that need attention. Also, a genuinely independent
Subud press would reassure newcomers who have fears about Subud being a cult.
But how much freedom of expression are members ready to tolerate at this stage?
To the
extent that we function as a kind of family, self-censorship comes into play.
There are issues of morale and ‘face’. Families don’t disclose to the world all
their problems. Within the family, the older generation may have secrets they
conceal from impressionable youngsters, and the youngsters may have opinions
and behaviour they conceal from possibly judgmental elders. With
self-censorship the boundaries are indistinct; we may restrain ourselves
unnecessarily out of a general feeling of the need for caution or out of a
sense of the deference due to Bapak and others. Perhaps certain subjects are
never addressed; others, only in a certain style or manner. Over the years
norms have been established that may prove difficult to break away from. Do we want to break away from them?
Maybe
there is a special Subud ‘culture’ that permeates our forms of expression. If
there is, is it something essential or just habitual? One of the problems with
spreading Subud seems to be that most of us don't have any idea, and many are
not particularly interested, in knowing what kind of impression we give the
outside world. Would it be useful if our Subud publications could to some
extent provide a kind of objective mirror for us?
And
what does the readership want to read about? The usual fare is reports on Subud
gatherings, international helper travel, Subud enterprises and projects, and
the activities of the Wings. Of course these are important, but are there other
areas that for one reason or another have been neglected?
Perhaps
because of our strange Subud phobia about using our minds, there seems to be a
general reluctance to examine and analyze our Subud experience. We try to make
everything fit into the useful but limited framework of Bapak’s explanations,
and what doesn’t fit, we tend to ignore. Could a free press encourage us to
look objectively at our collective experience of the latihan with the aim of
arriving at a clearer understanding of this path we follow?
How do
we feel about controversy? Some readers delight in it; others become very
uncomfortable. Some blame the publication if it prints views they don’t agree
with. Sometimes it is a discouraging experience for readers to discover how
much their own assumptions differ from those of other members. But if we want a
free press that is widely representative, there are bound to be disgruntled
readers from time to time, given the diversity of outlook one finds in Subud.
Finally,
there’s the question of whether it is actually possible for a publication to be
independent when it depends financially either directly or indirectly on its
readers.
None
of it is very straightforward. Personally, I found the irreverence of Gee-wa refreshing, and am relieved to see the
Subud world becoming more open, more grounded, more in touch with reality. I
would like to see us push back our invisible boundaries and brush away the
cobwebs to become more self-aware, less culture-bound and in a certain sense,
more ‘normal’. Bapak in his later years was always urging us to stand on our
own two feet and stop depending on him. Maybe we are finally ready to do that.
Reprinted
from SCAN
1998