I would hereby divide this message into two parts. This is the first part, an attempt to discuss “rongrongan.”
Think of Javanese “sokoguru.” It consists of four columns and four beams. On top of the system is the roof. Since our discussion is on the subject of space, I would concentrate on what is available (ie., the space) under the roof, enclosed by the four beams and the four columns.
This space is called “rongrongan.” One comment made by Anashiday (Anas Hidayat, I presume) on this blog mentioned “rong,” which is (to use the term proposed by David Hutama in another comment on the blog) a cavity. It is a small cavity where small insects (like ants) live.
I am not an expert on Javanese etymology. Yet there seems to be a connection between “rong” and “rongrongan.” The term “rongrongan” may denote something that simulates “rong.”
If it is so, it is curious that small cavity made by insects became a model for dwelling space for Javanese people. This, however, is just my guess. It is difficult for me to determine how it really is. So, it would be highly appreciated if anyone would discuss or give her/his expertise/view on this matter.
Now, the second part (which is more like a sort of precaution).
This time, let us think of the aformentioned "sokoguru" and the roof it supports. The roof is extended to the four sides of the structure (with support of additional columns, of course).
The significance of the main roof (supported by the “sokoguru”) is that it shades the space (“rongrongan”) beneath it. The significance of the roof extension, I think, should not be considered in an overtly philosophical manner, particularly in Western sense. I will elaborate more on this point.
I suspect the roof extension is simply pragmatic. It is constructed in order to provide more shade for more people. It is not a matter of geometry or the likes. Now, why reading it pragmatically?
There is a difference between Javanese and Western (ie, platonic) systems. Platonic, Western system, as we know, suggests the dichotomy between the realm of ideal space and real space, thus between idea and practice. Whereas, Javanese system does not seem to recognize such dichotomy.
I think—to the extent of my limited knowledge—there is a reason why pre-Islamic (or pre-colonial?) Javanese society did not produce thoughts akin to Descartes, in particular on the issue of where the soul and the body meet. The Javanese did not develop Kierkegaard’s angst either. They did not see the need to make a call akin to Heidegger’s call for a return to “Sein.” The Javanese did not seem to care spending time and effort to find praxis. Because they simply did not need to.
Instead, the Javanese developed something similar to the metaphysics of Spinoza. The Javanese did not separate the realms of the transcendental and the corporeal. The corporeal is regarded as a manifestation of the transcendental (eg, the ultimate substance). The dichotomy that has produced the necessity and efforts to find praxis in the West is simply out of the Javanese equation. Such is the basis of Javanese system of thought.
It is this basis of thought--instead of the Western, platonic one--that should be the basis of our effort to discuss and interpret Javanese notion(s) of space. The Javanese notion(s) of space may—I repeat, may—be akin to Lefebvre’s spatial practice. It is not a chora, or a simulation of chora. It is a lived and experienced space in which people’s daily lives, not some abstract representation, determine the space. This is what I meant by getting pragmatic. To be pragmatic matters in discussing Javanese notion(s) of space. Javanese space should not be discussed or analyzed under the term of platonic mode of thought, nor should it be discussed and analyzed under the term of dichotomy between the transcendental and the corporeal.
This proposition on how to discuss Javanese space may become a model for discussing spaces of other Nusantara peoples. This is not at all to imply Javanese superiority. In fact, I suspect, imposing Javanese model of thought on discussions of other Nusantara spaces would bring us to a blunder. It is the effort to identify the appropriate modes of thought which should be done before, during and after discussing the spaces of Nusantara.
