The production of knowledge that occurs due to the social interaction of Indonesian students in Egypt, especially at Al-Azhar University, has a major role in the formation of a cosmopolitan identity. In this context, the daily social conditions of students in Egypt are more influential in the production of knowledge than the academic background. This was conveyed by Prof. Dr. Judith Schlehe, Professor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Freiburg, in a discussion of SEA-Talks # 14 on Friday (07/04). The discussion entitled “Student Mobility & Knowledge Migration: Indonesian Azharites as Cultural Agents” was held at the office of Center for Southeast Asian Social Studies (CESASS) UGM.
Quoting Vertovec and Cohen (2002), Prof. Schlehe explained that to form a cosmopolitan identity, Indonesian students must engage socio-cultural interactives that are cross-cultural. Instead of being a boundary or a separator, the constructions between self and others and cultural differences must be appreciated and must encourage interaction. It means that the reproduction of knowledge to form a cosmopolitan identity will occur if Indonesian students interact with the Egyptians in an inter-cultural context.
Even so, based on research conducted by prof. Schlehe in Indonesian student dormitory in Cairo, inter-cultural interaction happened rarely. Indonesian students only interacted in a very homogeneous space, with Indonesian fellow students in their dormitory. In fact, they were not friendly with the Egyptians. In addition, the interaction space within the campus was also minimal because many Indonesian students at Al-Azhar University rarely (46%) or even never (17%) followed the lectures. This was probably because many Indonesian students in Egypt, especially Cairo, had to work to pay for their living. Moreover, there was a context or institution that bound them to the country of origin, namely Indonesia. This institution for example was a regional dormitory established by the local government in Egypt. These dormitory facilitated their interaction with fellow Indonesian students, making them difficult to expand social interactions outside the ‘safe’ zone. This condition was very different from that in Alexandria. Indonesian students there hung out with the Egyptians because no institution bound them to Indonesia and at least Indonesians in Alexandria.
The lack of interaction with the Egyptians made the Indonesian students in Cairo unable to deconstruct the image of the negative and stereotypical Egyptians. In fact, these images they got were from stories told by their colleagues and from the media, not from personal experience. The attributes that Indonesian students associated to Egyptians are rude, stealing, dirty, dangerous, and oppressive towards women. According to Prof. Schlehe, this shows how Indonesian students were construing the boundaries between self and others by emphasizing the moral inferiority of the other.
From the results of ethnographic research that Prof. Schlehe explained, she drew the conclusion that cultural hybridization and the reproduction of knowledge that could encourage cosmopolitan identity and pluralism did not occur. This was because Indonesian students excluded themselves from intercultural interactions. In fact, Prof. Schlehe emphasized that cosmopolitanism and pluralism will only be formed if the production of knowledge of Indonesian alumni and students in Egypt took place within the wider scope of social space, not only in a homogeneous and limited community. (Anggi)