The enchantment of this “totality” is that, even as a communal event, it fails to define the community explicitly. In the Slametan, everyone agrees, but there is no assurance that everyone agrees on every part of it.
Hence, Slametan is better seen as a communal gathering composed of individuals who not only possess different views and orientations but, importantly, remain distinct within their differences.
In this context, I am not interested in discussing whether the Slametan represents the core or center of Javanese religion (Geertz) or not at all (Betty). What I wish to emphasize about the Slametan is its role as a gathering and the meanings that can be derived from it. As a communal event, Slametan is a language of argument, not a choir of harmony.
In a Slametan, consensus can be built, yet each individual remains distinct. Unity is maintained, but individual representation is possible and valued. Isn’t such a gathering more similar to communal life, societal life, and national life?
Just like the Slametan, communal life, societal life, and national life consist of individuals and groups who are different (in terms of occupation, social status, education, gender, ethnicity, race, religion, interests, orientations, thoughts, and more). They gather in a certain region (e.g., Indonesia) at a particular time to weave unity (consensus) and, let’s say, for shared great purposes. Their unity is not a harmonious choir, where individuals and groups blend in.