Digital Humor of Young Bureaucrats as an Agency in the Transformation of Indonesian Bureaucracy

Dodi Faedlulloh, Vina Karmilsari, M Irsyad Fadoli

Abstract


This study investigates the agency of young bureaucrats in the transformation of Indonesian bureaucracy through the lens of Žižekian subject theory. Employing a qualitative approach, it examines their critical discourse, particularly as expressed through the Instagram account @asnmasasaja. The findings underscore the potential of young bureaucrats as transformative agents within bureaucratic structures. Their humor-laden critiques of hierarchical norms and entrenched practices reveal a dialectical tension between the imaginary and symbolic phases of subject formation. While these critiques affirm their agency and resistance to the status quo, a critical gap remains between their symbolic contestations and their ability to enact tangible reforms—what Žižek conceptualizes as the "Real phase." Despite their incisive critiques and clear frustrations, these young bureaucrats struggle to translate their insights into concrete bureaucratic change, leaving them trapped within the symbolic order of the system. This study contributes to discussions on bureaucracy, humor, and critique through a Žižekian philosophical framework, illustrating the limitations of digital resistance in driving structural transformation. It offers a nuanced understanding of how young bureaucrats navigate the contradictions of power, bureaucracy, ideology, and institutional constraints.


Keywords


Bureaucracy, Humour, Criticism, Young Bureaucrat, Žižekian

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agger, A., & Sørensen, E. (2016). Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies. Planning Theory, 17(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216672500

Akmal, R. (2015). Subjektivitas Pramudya Ananta Toer dalam Novel Perburuan Kajian Psikoanalisis Historis Slavoj Zizek. Jentera, 4(1), 12–23.

Aldrich, R. M., & Rudman, D. L. (2020). Occupational Therapists as Street-Level Bureaucrats: Leveraging the Political Nature of Everyday Practice. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 87(2), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417419892712

Andhika, L. R. (2017). Pathology Bureaucracy: Reality of the Indonesian Bureaucracy and Prevention. Jurnal Bina Praja: Journal of Home Affairs Governance, 9(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.21787/JBP.09.2017.101-114

Andreotta, M., Nugroho, R., Hurlstone, M. J., Boschetti, F., Farrell, S., Walker, I., & Paris, C. (2019). Analyzing social media data: A mixed-methods framework combining computational and qualitative text analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51(4), 1766–1781. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01202-8

Annur, C. M. (2022). Tahun Ini Ada Banyak Pelaku Korupsi Berpangkat Eselon. Katadata.

Baekgaard, M., & Serritzlew, S. (2016). Interpreting Performance Information: Motivated Reasoning or Unbiased Comprehension. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 73–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24757494

Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2018). Innovation in the public sector: Towards an open and collaborative approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(2), 209-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318761797

Belabas, W., & Gerrits, L. (2017). Going the Extra Mile? How Street-level Bureaucrats Deal with the Integration of Immigrants. Social Policy & Administration, 51(1), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12184

Bourdieu, P. (2018). Structures, habitus, practices. In Rethinking the subject (pp. 31-45). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429497643

Butler, R. (2016). Review Essay : On the “ Subject ” of Zizek. International Journal of Zizek Studies, 10(3).

Chang, A., & Brewer, G. A. (2023). Street-level bureaucracy in public administration: A systematic literature review. Public management review, 25(11), 2191-2211.

Chapman, C. (2019), "From hierarchies to networks: Possibilities and pitfalls for educational reform of the middle tier", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 554-570. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2018-0222

Child, J. (2018). Downward accountability. Corporate Governance in Contention, 193. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805274.003.0009

Chiesa, L. (2007). Subjectivity and Otherness. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7454.001.0001

Diefenbach, T., & Todnem By, R. (2012). Reinventing Hierarchy and Bureaucracy – From the Bureau to Network Organizations (p. i). https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2012)0000035014

Foucault, M. (2023). Discipline and punish. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 291-299). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003320609

Gajduschek, G. (2003). Bureaucracy: Is It Efficient? Is It Not? Is That The Question? Administration & Society, 34(6), 700–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399702239171

Gaus, N., Sultan, S., & Basri, M. (2017). State Bureaucracy in Indonesia and its Reforms: An Overview. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(8), 658–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1186179

Huber, G., & Brown, A. D. (2017). Identity work, humour and disciplinary power. Organization Studies, 38(8), 1107-1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406166776

Hughes, O.E. (1998). The Traditional Model of Public Administration. In: Public Management and Administration. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26896-2_2

Jackall, R. (2017). Moral mazes: Bureaucracy and managerial work. In The Anthropology of Organisations (pp. 183-195). Routledge.

Jiang, Z. (2022). Understanding Bureaucratic Involution through Weber’s Bureaucracy: China’s Central Inspection Teams in Practice. Modern China, 48(6), 1179–1207. https://doi.org/10.1177/00977004221118573

Johnston, A. (2004). The Cynic’s Fetish: Slavoj Žižek and the Dynamics of Belief. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 9(3), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pcs.2100014

Langbein, L. (2018). Bureaucratic discretion in public agencies: Principals, principles, and agents. In Handbook of American public administration (pp. 137-153). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lapiccirella, A. (2015). On Bureaucratic Behavior (pp. 103–118). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07037-7_9

Lee, D. S., & Park, S. (2021). What motivates street-level bureaucrats to implement the reforms of elected politicians? Policy & Politics, 49(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15955052478653

Lee, Y. J., Hwang, H., Lim, S., & Yoon, T. (2026). Keeping millennials in the public sector: Comparing turnover intentions of millennial and older generation civil servants. Public Personnel Management, 55(1), 3-37.

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell sage foundation.

Marienfeldt, J. (2024). Does digital government hollow out the essence of street‐level bureaucracy? A systematic literature review of how digital tools' foster curtailment, enablement and continuation of street‐level decision‐making. Social Policy & Administration, 58(5), 831-855.

Meier, K. J., Compton, M., Polga-Hecimovich, J., Song, M., & Wimpy, C. (2019). Bureaucracy and the Failure of Politics: Challenges to Democratic Governance. Administration and Society, 51(10), 1576–1605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719874759

Michels, A., & de Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2010.494101

Mustafa, G., Solli-Sæther, H., Bodolica, V., Håvold, J. I., & Ilyas, A. (2022). Digitalization trends and organizational structure: bureaucracy, ambidexterity or post-bureaucracy?. Eurasian Business Review, 12(4), 671-694.

Newton, K. (2021). Using research to improve your experience. Instagram. https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/using-research-to-improve-your-experience

Nielsen, P. A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2017). How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw060

Nobus, D. (2018). Life and death in the glass: A new look at the mirror stage. In Key concepts of Lacanian psychoanalysis (pp. 101-138). Routledge.

Noys, B. (2016). The horror of the Real: Žižek’s modern gothic. International Journal of Žižek Studies, 4(4).

Nyadera, I.N., Islam, M.N. (2022). Link Between Administration, Politics, and Bureaucracy. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_3903

Pascoe, K. M., Waterhouse-Bradley, B., & McGinn, T. (2023). Social Workers’ Experiences of Bureaucracy: A Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. The British Journal of Social Work, 53(1), 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcac106

Penger, S., & Tekavcic, M. (2008). Slovenian Case of Stategic Change Management in the Public Sector: Towards the Lisbon Strategy. Original Scientific Paper UDC.

Rahadian, A. H. (2013). Konsep Dynamic Governance Sebagai Reformasi Administrasi Publik. Jurnal Bijak, 10(2).

Ricks, J. I. (2017). Street-Level Bureaucrats and Irrigation Policy Reform in Southeast Asia. Asian Politics & Policy, 9(2), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/aspp.12319

Robert, R. (2010). Manusia Politik: Subjek Radikal dan Politik Emansipasi di Era Kapitalisme Global Menurut Slavoj Zizek. Marjin Kiri.

Sharpe, M. (2017). Slavoj Žižek: A little piece of the real. Routledge.

Sheikh, F. A. (2017). Subjectivity, desire and theory: Reading Lacan. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2017.1299565

Statista. (2023). Social media in Indonesia - statistics & facts. Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/8306/social-media-in-indonesia/#topicOverview

Suryajaya, M. (2014). Slavoj Zizek dan Pembentukan Identitas Subjektif melalui Bahasa. Jurnal Ultima Humaniora, II(2), 136–147.

Tu, W., & Gong, T. (2022). Bureaucratic Shirking in China: Is Sanction-based Accountability a Cure? The China Quarterly, 249, 259–274. doi:10.1017/S0305741021001004

Turner, M., Prasojo, E., & Sumarwono, R. (2022). The challenge of reforming big bureaucracy in Indonesia. Policy Studies, 43(2), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1708301

Wise, L. R. (2004). Bureaucratic posture: On the need for a composite theory of bureaucratic behavior. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 669-680.

Zhu, Z., Liu, Y., Zhang, N., & Peng, Z. (2023). Motivations underlining the “blame avoidance dilemma”: The effect on street-level bureaucrats during a crisis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 94, 103808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103808

Žižek, S. (2000). Melancholy and the Act. Critical Inquiry, 26(4), 657–681. https://doi.org/10.1086/448987

Žižek, S. (2018). Events through Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real. Sex and Nothing, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429479922-3




DOI: https://doi.org/10.35308/jpp.v12i4.11039

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2026 Dodi Faedlulloh, Vina Karmilsari, M Irsyad Fadoli

Jurnal Public Policy
p-ISSN: 2477-5738  I  e-ISSN: 2502-0528  I  DOI: 10.35308
Jl. Alue Peunyareng, Ujong Tanoh Darat, Meureubo, Kabupaten Aceh Barat, Aceh 23681, Indonesia
(0655) 7110535 l +621260313742 l +6285277110911
License Creative Commons is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License