Punishments imposed on female students in Indonesia for perceived violations of headscarf (jilbab) rules have been going on for over a decade. The latest incident involved the shaving or cutting of hair, not covered by a headscarf, of 19 students at the State Junior High School (SMP Negeri) 1 in Sidodadi, Lamongan, East Java.
In 2021, a non-Muslim female student at State Vocational High School (SMK Negeri) 2 in Padang, West Sumatra, protested after she was forced to wear a headscarf. The school eventually admitted their mistake, stating that the headscarf was not mandatory. However, she and her family still faced bullying from the community, which believed the school’s actions were correct.
This article aims to analyze the hair-cutting incident by using the “power relations” theory of French philosopher Michel Foucault. Power relations are clearly at play in this hair-cutting incident: the power of the disciplining teacher over the disciplined students, the power relations between the education bureaucracy and the school, or between the school and the parents of the students who were the victims.
Going beyond Foucault’s concept of power relations, the hair-cutting incident is a perfect example of how power operates almost without control due to the influence it derives from a primordial religious perspective. The teachers, as holders of power, not only feel controlled by their superiors (school principals, school committees, the Ministry of Education and Culture) in enforcing discipline, they also believe that they are appointed by God to enforce the rules of modesty for female students.
Such attitude finds support in the ambiguity of the rules. Regulations regarding the use of headscarves are found in Minister of Education and Culture Regulation No. 59/2014 concerning the 2013 National Curriculum, which has never been revoked even though the “Merdeka Curriculum” is now being implemented. The rule with regards to dress code comes under Item 1.4 titled: “Dress requirement in accordance with Islamic sharia in daily life.” This vague statement provides the justification to support the teachers’ actions, believing they are disciplining students according to religious commandments (Islam).
At least two fundamental questions arising from this incident need to be addressed to prevent similar events from recurring. First, is the headscarf mandatory in schools, including public schools such as the SMK 2 Padang, where not all students are Muslim and not all believe that wearing a headscarf is a religious obligation?
Alternatively, is the headscarf considered part of the school uniform? If the headscarf is deemed part of the school uniform, then there must be a rational philosophical foundation for this policy – a generally applicable explanation for the obligation to wear the jilbab as the official school uniform. The consequence of this would be that wearing the headscarf must be mandatory for all female students regardless of their beliefs.
Conversely, if wearing the headscarf is related to religious beliefs, then it cannot be the basis for school rules and discipline. This also means it is forbidden to use the prevalent power to require the use of the headscarf. The second issue is to what extent an individual or an institution feels they have the authority to control the bodies and sexuality of females using primordial and subjectivity-based criteria? What is the basis for this enforcement, and who should be responsible? Where does the responsibility of the school end, and where does the responsibility of the family and society begin?
These philosophical queries stem from the classic question of the separation of subjective beliefs from universal and rational public issues with regards to public space, such as in schools.
Another aspect in Foucault’s theory of power relations is the role of knowledge as a source of power. In the teacher-student power relationship, power is layered, especially for those types of power that are not transparently and objectively regulated – for example, who gets to control teachers’ power over the evaluation of their students’ performance, the power to assess their intelligence and obedience, and the power over the correctness of the knowledge they impart (the subjects they teach), as well as the power over the understanding of beliefs.
Beyond Foucault’s view, in cases of forcing the use of the jilbab, belief/religion serves as the source of the teachers’ power. In such situations, the teacher who cut the students’ hair and their supporters do not feel guilty because they believe they are acting as agents of God. For Indonesia, with its diverse ethnic groups, races, religions, cultures and beliefs, head coverings are not something that is foreign or understood solely as a sign of religious identity. This can be seen from the wide range of names for the headscarf in our various cultures, such as kudung, kerudung, kukudung, tiung, tengkuluak, awik, none of which are derived from the Arabic words, hijab or jilbab.
This shows that headscarves or head coverings for Indonesian women are part of the local culture, created because of the natural environment. In a climate with sunshine all year long, Indonesian women have long worn head coverings, whatever their occupation: farmers, fishers, traders, government personnel, office workers, or housewives. Headscarves exist in the daily lives of Indonesian women with varied functions, whatever their cultural, traditional, or religious background.
The meaning of the headscarf solely as a religious identity marker and a form of control over females’ bodies and sexuality is a setback for Indonesian society. The Iranian revolution, which used the headscarf as a symbol of opposition to the Shah’s dictatorship, or its use as a symbol of piety as introduced by the Salafis or Wahhabis, or as a political identity by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the associated Tarbiyah network in Indonesia, have both narrowed and usurped the meaning and function of the headscarf for Indonesian women.
In the teachings of Islam itself, the use of head coverings by women is not compulsory. This can be seen from the weakness of reference sources and the emergence of multiple opinions. The headscarf is now being used more as a symbol of religious political identity rather than as a teaching of religion. Therefore, restoring the headscarf to its cultural function will free the state from having to impose discipline in schools and at the same time eliminate its use as a means of control over female bodies and sexuality.
Lies Marcoes, Senior Researcher at Puan Amal Hayati Liesmarcoes17@gmail.
