From Pancasila to global citizenship: A new episteme of diversity in contemporary Indonesian education policy
Keywords:
Global diversity, Pancasila, Episteme, Indonesian education policyAbstract
This article analyses the construction of global diversity in Indonesian education policy through Michel Foucault's Discourse Archaeology approach. The findings show that the discourse of global diversity in the Pancasila Student Profile (PPP) did not emerge naturally, but was the result of the convergence of three rationalities that formed a new episteme of education during Joko Widodo's administration. The first rationality is the moral rationality of Pancasila, which places Pancasila values as the highest moral source in shaping student character, as reflected in the Nawacita document and the vision of national character development. The second rationality is the global humanistic rationality, which adopts the discourse of tolerance, cultural openness, and intercultural interaction as universal moral values sourced from the UNESCO, OECD, and SDGs Global Citizenship Education framework. The third rationality is the technocratic rationality of developing superior human resources, which treats diversity as a strategic competency that can be measured, audited, and used as an indicator of educational success through instruments such as the Ministry of Education and Culture's Strategic Plan, curriculum regulations, BSKAP decisions, and learning outcomes. Through the interaction of these three rationalities, global diversity is constructed as stable, valid, and mandatory knowledge for every Indonesian student. This article argues that the new episteme of diversity not only combines national morality and global values, but also transforms both into technocratic components in human resource development projects. Thus, global diversity functions as a technology of power to shape students as Pancasila-based global citizens tolerant, competitive, and measurable.
References
Ahl, H. (2007). Sex business in the toy store: A narrative analysis of a teaching case. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(5), 673–693.
2. Anggraena, E. al. (2020). Kajian Pengembangan Profil Pelajar Pancasila (1st ed.). Kemenristekdikbud RI.
3. Apple, M. W. (2003). Patriotism, Religion, and the Struggle Over Knowledge in Schools. Educational Policy, 17(3), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803017003005
4. Aspinall, E., & Mietzner, M. (2019). Southeast Asia’s Troubling Elections: Nondemocratic Pluralism in Indonesia. Journal of Democracy, 30(4), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2019.0055
5. Azevedo, M. L. N. de, & Robertson, S. L. (2022). Authoritarian populism in Brazil: Bolsonaro’s Caesarism, ‘counter-trasformismo’ and reactionary education politics. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1955663
6. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity (Vol. 5). Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
7. Boyraz, C. (2018). Neoliberal populism and governmentality in Turkey: The foundation of communication centers during the AKP era. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 44(4), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453718755205
8. Brown, W. (2006). Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the age of Identity and Empire. Princeton University Press.
9. BSKAP. (2022). Dimensi, Elemen, dan Subelemen Profil Pelajar Pancasila pada Kurikulum Merdeka. 1–35.
10. Doğan, S., & Selenica, E. (2022). Authoritarianism and academic freedom in neoliberal Turkey. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1899801
11. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge: Translated from the french by AM Sheridan Smith. Pantheon Books.
12. Kyle, J., & Gultchin, L. (2018). Populism in Power Around the World. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3283962
13. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2014a). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (Vol. 8). Verso Books.
14. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2014b). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. In Verso.
15. Lim, L., & Apple, M. W. (2016). Strong state and curriculum reform. Taylor & Francis.
16. Pinson, H. (2022). Neo Zionist right-wing populist discourse and activism in the Israel education system. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(2), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1872372
17. Popkewitz, T. S. (2018). The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution. Routledge.
18. Rizvi, F. (2021). Populism , the state and education in Asia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1910015
19. Robertson, S. L., & Nestore, M. (2022). Education cleavages, or market society and the rise of authoritarian populism? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2021.1955662
20. Tugal, C. (2016). Neoliberal populism as a contradictory articulation. European Journal of Sociology, 57(03), 466–470. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003975616000205/type/journal_article
21. Wahyudin, D., Subkhan, E., Malik, A., Hakim, M. A., Sudiapermana, E., LeliAlhapip, M., Nur Rofika Ayu Shinta Amalia, L. S., Ali, N. B. V., & Krisna, F. N. (2024). Kajian Akademik Kurikulum Merdeka. Kemendikbud, 1–143.
22. Ylimaki, R. M., & Uljens, M. (2017). Theorizing educational leadership studies, curriculum, and didaktik: NonAffirmative education theory in bridging disparate fields. In Leadership and Policy in Schools (Vol. 16, Issue 2, pp. 175–227). Taylor & Francis.
23. Žižek, S. (2008). Tolerance as an ideological category. Critical Inquiry, 34(4), 660–682.
Downloads
Published
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.