Vol. 34 No. 2 Juli-Desember 2013

ISSN: 1693-167X

ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Indonesian Journal of Social and Cultural Anthropology

The Ritual of Khanduri Bungong Kayèe (An Ethnographic Study in West Labuhan Haji-South Aceh)

ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Vol. 34 No. 2 Juli-Desember 2013

Upaya Pencegahan Perceraian Berbasis Keluarga Luas dan Institusi Lokal dalam Masyarakat Minangkabau di Sumatera Barat

Vol. 34 No. 2 Juli-Desember 2013

Ideological War in Inclusive Twitter: #IndonesiaTanpaJIL versus Jaringan Islam Liberal

Departemen Antropologi Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Indonesia

ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Vol. 34 No. 2 2013 Dewan Penasihat

Dekan Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Indonesia Ketua Departemen Antropologi, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Indonesia Ketua Pusat Kajian Antropologi, Departemen Antropologi, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Indonesia

Pemimpin Redaksi

Semiarto Aji Purwanto

Redaksi Pelaksana

Dave Lumenta, Dian Sulistiawati, Ezra M. Choesin, Irwan M. Hidayana, Sri Paramita Budi Utami.

Manajer Tata Laksana

Ni Nyoman Sri Natih

Administrasi dan Keuangan

Dewi Zimarny

Distribusi dan Sirkulasi

Ni Nyoman Sri Natih

Pembantu Teknis

Rendi Iken Satriyana Dharma

Dewan Redaksi

Achmad Fedyani Saifuddin, Universitas Indonesia Birgit Bräuchler, University of Frankfurt Boedhi Hartono, Universitas Indonesia Engseng Ho, Duke University Greg Acciaioli, University of Western Australia Heddy Shri Ahimsa Putra, Gadjah Mada University Martin Slama, Austrian Academy of Sciences Meutia F. Swasono, Universitas Indonesia Kari Telle, Chr. Michelsen Institute Ratna Saptari, University of Leiden Semiarto Aji Purwanto, Universitas Indonesia Suraya Afiff, Universitas Indonesia Timo Kaartinen, University of Helsinki Yasmine.Z. Shahab, Universitas Indonesia Yunita.T. Winarto, Universitas Indonesia

ISSN 1693-167X

ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA is a refereed international journal

Daftar Isi ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA VOL. 34 NO. 2 2013

The Ritual of Khanduri Bungong Kayèe 88 (An Ethnographic Study in West Labuhan Haji-South Aceh) Abdul Manan Upaya Pencegahan Perceraian 101 Berbasis Keluarga Luas dan Institusi Lokal dalam Masyarakat Minangkabau di Sumatera Barat Fachrina dan Rinaldi Eka Putra Ideological War in Inclusive Twitter: #IndonesiaTanpaJIL versus Jaringan Islam Liberal Sindhunata Hargyono

113

Bundo Kanduang: (hanya) Pemimpin di Rumah (Gadang) Zainal Arifin

124

Memahami Sistem Pengetahuan 134 Budaya Masyarakat Pegunungan Tengah, Jayawijaya, Papua dalam Konteks Kebencanaan Leny Veronika ‘Pokok Hari Nyalah’: 152 Catatan Budaya (Lokal) dalam Membaca Perubahan Iklim (Global) Pangeran P.P.A. Nasution Kekuasaan yang Bekerja 164 Melalui Perlawanan: Kasus Penguasaan Hutan oleh Masyarakat dan Perusahaan Prudensius Maring Karakteristik Anak Jalanan 176 dan Bentuk-Bentuk Kekerasan terhadap Anak Jalanan di Kota Padang Provinsi Sumatera Barat Erwin

Berdasarkan Keputusan Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik lndonesia Nomor: 80/DIKTI/ Kep/2012 tanggal 13 Desember 2012 tentang “Hasil Akreditasi Terbitan Berkala llmiah Periode II Tahun 2012,” Jurnal Antropologi Indonesia (JAI) diakui sebagai jurnal nasional terakreditasi, berlaku sejak 13 Desember 2012 – 13 Desember 2017.

Ideological War in Inclusive Twitter: #IndonesiaTanpaJIL versus Jaringan Islam Liberal Sindhunata Hargyono1 Department of Anthropology FISIP Universitas Indonesia

Abstrak Pada awal tahun 2012 sebuah gerakan masyarakat sipil bernama #IndonesiaTanpaFPI menuntut negara untuk membubarkan sebuah ormas Islam fundamentalis bernama FPI (Front Pembela Islam) karena tindak kekerasan yang dilakukan oleh ormas tersebut kepada kaum Islam minoritas. #IndonesiaTanpaFPI sangat mengandalkan penggunaan situs media sosial untuk mengorganisir gerakannya, sehingga sebuah gerakan balasan yang muncul dari kalangan Islam pro-FPI pun dimulai dari Twitter; gerakan tersebut bernama #IndonesiaTanpaJIL.Gerakan balasan ini percaya bahwa #IndonesiaTanpaFPI sebenarnya adalah gerakan yang diorganisir oleh kaum Jaringan Islam Liberal (JIL). Sejak saat itu, #IndonesiaTanpaJIL dan JIL terus bertikai secara diskursif di dalam Twitter. Artikel ini berkonsentrasi kepada pembentukan dua publik religius yang semata-mata dikonstitusi oleh tiap diskursusnya lewat topik diskursif yang terkait dengan kaum minoritas Islam tertindas, yaitu: Ahmadiyah, Syiah, dan Rohingya. Lewat interpretasi teks yang dilakukan dengan mencari irisan dari intensi teks dan model reader (yang dikonstruksi lewat interaksi online maupun offline) penulis telah mengidentifikasi berbagai titik temu diskursif antara ITJ dan JIL. Kedua publik religius menggunakan berbagai topik diskursif yang mereka anggap menarik semata-mata untuk menarik perhatian audiens, karena dalam konteks perang pemikiran banyaknya dukungan audiens adalah hal yang paling penting untuk melambungkan diskursusnya ke domain hegemoni. Lebih jauh lagi, artikel ini menunjukkan bagaimana logika modernitas yang terobsesi pada tatanan ideal adalah faktor yang dapat menjelaskan budaya eksklusif pada arena sosial yang sejatinya inklusif. Kata kunci: publik religius; Twitter; perang ideologi; hegemoni; Indonesia Tanpa JIL; Jaringan Islam Liberal. Abstract In early 2012, a civil-initiated movement called #IndonesiaTanpaFPI urged the government to disband an Islamic fundamentalist group called FPI (Front Pembela Islam) because of the violence to an Islamic minority group that FPI had commited earlier. #IndonesiaTanpaFPI heavily relied upon Twitter in organizing their movement, so when a counter-movement from the pro-FPI emerged, it was on Twitter as well; the counter-movement called themselves #IndonesiaTanpaJIL. This counter-movement believes that #IndonesiaTanpaFPI was actually initiated and organized by Jaringan Islam Liberal (JIL). Since then, #IndonesiaTanpaJIL and JIL have been fighting discursively on Twitter. This article concentrates on the formation of two religious publics constituted solely by their discourses articulated, particularly the topic related to suppressed of Islamic minority groups; namely: Ahmadiyah, Syiah, and Rohingya. Through tweets interpretation by seeking incision between intention of the text and model reader (that is constructed both by online and offline interaction), the writer has identified various discourse nexuses between ITJ and JIL. Both of the religious publics articulate interesting or controversial discourses on Twitter just to grasp the audience’s attention, because in the context of ideological war the number of supporters is the only important thing to bring their discourses to hegemonic domain. Furthermore, this article shows how the logic of modernity with its obsession to ideal order is a factor that can explain the culture of exclusivity inside a social arena that was designed for inclusivity. Keywords: religious public; Twitter; ideological war; hegemony; Indonesia Tanpa JIL; Jaringan Islam Liberal 1 Graduated student from Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Indonesia. E-mail: sindhunata. [email protected]

ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Vol. 34 No. 2 2013

113

This article is the output of a six-month research that was conducted from September 2012 until March 2013. During the first four months, I was part of a PUSKA research team led by Imam Ardhianto. We undertake internet data archiving as well as participant observation in the offline activities of two religious publics in Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Bandung, and Makassar. Starting from January 2013, I continued this research by myself under Ezra M. Choesin’s supervision, as he was my undergraduate thesis supervisor in the Department Anthropology of Universitas Indonesia. The first four months with the team concentrated on the emergence of #IndonesiaTanpaJIL (ITJ), while my undergraduate thesis focused more on the discursive tensions between ITJ and Jaringan Islam Liberal1 (JIL) on Twitter. By exploring the discursive tensions with a basic hermeneutic approach, this article traces more than the issue of marginalized Islamic minority groups, but also the two publics’s ideologies behind their pious digital public speeches. At the end, this article shows how the cultural practice of modern individuals influences the form of Twitter online interaction, which contradicts Twitter’s principle. #IndonesiaTanpaFPI On February 2012, a group of men attacked some villagers in Banten, West Java, Indonesia. Armed with knife, bamboos, and stones; they killed two persons. The armed men was later known as members of FPI (Front Pembela Islam/Islam Defender Front), while the victims were Ahmadiyah followers. Ahmadiyah is an Islamic sect that has essential differences from the majority Islam in Indonesia. This paper will not elaborate how Ahmadiyah differs from the majority Islam, or how it does not; but the reason for FPI to attack the Ahmadi was their accusation that Ahmadiyah sect was blasphemous for having a holybook other than 1 Translated as Liberal Islamic Networks, a collective that promotes liberal Islamic thoughts in Indonesia.

114

Al-Qur’an, and also for idolizing another last prophet other than Muhammad SAW. The unconscious Ahmadi (term that refers to Ahmadiyah followers), the bloody mud, as well as the religious grace shouted by the murderers were recorded in a video file taken with a mobile phone. Not only recorded, the video was broadcasted on television and was accessible to many internet users. People became angry and manifested their anger (or support) in Twitter, a very popular social media site in Indonesia. Those who were angry criticized the FPI members and their leader Habib Rizieq Shihab, a descendant of the last prophet, Muhammad SAW. The strongest response of the angry Twitter users then manifested into a hashtag called #IndonesiaTanpaFPI (#IndonesiaWithoutFPI). This online hashtag became an offline civilinitiated movement when the activists gathered in Bundaran Hotel Indonesia Jakarta on February 14, 2012. This movement demanded the government to disband FPI for the violence its members commited in Cikeusik, as well as at the other past violence cases conducted by FPI. #IndonesiaTanpaJIL The demand from #IndonesiaTanpaFPI to disband FPI was seen positively by Ulil Abshar Abdala2 (@Ulil). A day just before #IndonesiaTanpaFPI’s offline demonstration took place; Ulil published a supportive kuliah tweet3 regarding this matter. Soon after, a counter hashtag called #IndonesiaTanpaJIL (#IndonesiaWithoutJIL/ITJ) emerged on Twitter. The people who supported the idea of this hashtag believed that #IndonesiaTanpaFPI movement was actually initiated by JIL, not by some consciousnes civilians. #IndonesiaTanpaJIL, firstly used as a counter-discourse of #IndonesiaTanpaFPI then became a movement that demanded JIL to be disbanded. From the first 2 One of Jaringan Islam Liberal founders, a Muslim intellectual, as well as a politician from Demoractic Party. 3 Kuliah tweet is a series of tweets that express specific knowledge or opinion.

Hargyono, Ideological War in Inclusive Twitter...

time it emerged, ITJ hashtag has been produced and reproduced massively in Twitter. #IndonesiaTanpaJIL hashtag was widely used by Twitter users who disagreed with JIL. Not only in Twitter, this hashtag also became a page on another popular social media site, Facebook. The Facebook page was created on February 19, 2012. On the first day, around 3.000 Facebook accounts joined the page. On November 25, 2012, the number reached 35,179 accounts. An official Twitter account called @TanpaJIL was also made. By November 25, 2013, this account already had 17,996 followers. #IndonesiaTanpaJIL started to become a social movement when the members gathered in the same place as #IndonesiaTanpaFPI’s action, Bundaran Hotel Indonesia, Jakarta. From the first time of ITJ’s emergence, the people who did not agree with JIL’s liberal thinking started to express their discontent to JIL even more, in the form of personal or impersonal tweets. The #IndonesiaTanpaJIL activists played the role of buzzers/opinion leaders who set the topics, and the reactionary people would respond to those topics. ITJ and JIL, Two Religions in Ideological War I see the discursive tensions between ITJ and JIL on Twitter as a form of ideological war. Akmal Sjafril (@malakmalakmal) in his book “Islam Liberal 101” wrote that Muslims are currently living in an era of ideological war. Such war uses empirical data and thoughts as weapons, and arguments as bullets. To win this war is not about killing as many opponents as one can, instead by getting the most supporters. The main content of that book is the flaws in Islamic Liberal thought (2012). In line with ITJ’s aspiration to get as many supporters as it can get, JIL in its official website also states that the main purpose of JIL is to spread Islamic Liberal thinking as far as it can. Twitter in the context of this article is a public space, because as defined by Neal (2010:


1), public space is any area which principally open and accessible to all members of a society. Twitter opens membership for all of the people that want to register without any exception, so it is valid to say that Twitter is a social space that principally open for all people of world society. Besides the inclusive membership, every ideological text articulated by both of the religious publics is accessible to all members (except direct messages1). From these facts, we can say that Twitter is a public space. The religious public terminology that I am using refers to Hirschkind and Larkin (2008: 5) who say that the religious articulations articulated in the media cannot be distinctly seen only as a religious phenomenon, because it is also mutually constitutive with political and media phenomena. Hirschkind and Larkin (2008) concentrate on how religious public constitutes its identity with an other-oriented attitude. Such attitude gives a religious public the tendency to negate itself from its discursive opposition. The term “public” used by Hirschkind and Larkin in “religious public” derives from the thoughts of Michael Warner. Warner (2005) distinguishes The Public and a public. The Public (starting with uppercase and singular) is a social totality, in common sense it can be defined as society in general (similar to “public needs”). Public can be formed as some organized society in a nation, country, city, or any other kind of community; for instance, Christianity and humanity. Public can also be a kind of social totality that is bounded by an event and collectively attended space. Meanwhile, publics (starting with lowercase and plural), is something different than Public. Publics solely exist because of a discursive consensus between strangers. This consensus is made in a discursive space, that is projected in a public space. Publics organize themselves with continuously circulating discourse that transcend temporalities, and has duration and context. The discourse(s) that constitutes pub 1 A Twitter feature that provides an account to send private message to another account as long as they follow each other.

115

lics unites strangers who do not know each other but collectively give attention to the same articulated discourse in public speech. The singular trait of Public, and in contrast, the plural trait of publics, do not mean that Public and publics are some kind of dichotomy. Public and publics dialectically influences

each other. When a discourse exists in several publics and becomes dominant—in terms of being affirmed by many people within various discursive affiliations that discourse would regulate the Public order unnoticed (Warner, 2005: 107). Thus, I presuppose the singular

Image 1. The Public in this image is constructed to make my explanation easier, ofcourse there is a possibility that discourse of publics exist in more than one Public. It depends on how The Public is defined anyway. The purpose of this image is to illustrate how different publics can have partly similar discourse as shown by the disjointed circles

Public as a big circle with so many disjointed smaller circles inside. The latter represents the plural publics. The little circles of publics are disjoined due to the nature of discourse, which is fluid. This fluidity makes it difficult to define the boundaries and sizes of discourse. The religious publics of ITJ and JIL are united by the attention that is continuously given by both of their supporters—including opinion leaders and buzzers. Based on my observation, the way most strangers participate discursively heavily relies on the topic that is being proposed by the opinion leaders. For instance, when ITJ’s opinion leader, Hafidz Ary, was tweeting his critic to JIL’s argument about blasphemy, then the people who were affiliating with ITJ would retweet1 his tweets. Another possible way of participating is to initiatie tweet about the

trending topic2 or even tweet about something else, as long as it is still relevant. For example, Rofi Uddarojat3 (@RofiUddarojat) responded to Akmal Sjafril is session in HardRock FM radio on May 2012 by tweeting the logical flaws of Akmal’s broadcasted contra-JIL arguments.

1 Retweet is a feature in Twitter, when an account retweet someone’s tweet, this tweet will become visible in his timeline. Consequently, his/her followers can see the retweeted tweet.

3 Rofi Uddarojat is an International Relation student of Paramadina University, Jakarta. I met him once, and he clearly stated that he affiliates his thought with liberal Islamic thoughts.

116

Social Media as Ethnographic Site According to Postill and Pink (2012), the definition of social media as ethnographic site really depends on the used methodology and method. There are two methods that can be utilized, first: content analysis of social media data (Agichtein et al., 2008; Honeycutt and Herring, 2009; Kwak et al., 2010; Oulasvirta et al., 2010 in Postill dan Pink, 2012: 3) and social networks analysis (Gilbert and Karahalios, 2009; Java et 2 Topic that is particularly trending in the ideological war, not on the Twitter in general.


al., 2007; Prieur et al., 2009 in Postill and Pink, 2012: 3). Such methods constitute social media as a research site filled with text. Statistical illustration generated from such data could be very useful for ethnographic research. However, the weakness of this method is its inability to answer deep research question, especially the “how” and “why” types of question. The second method is to use conventional ethnographical methods, such as interview and participant observation. This way, social media can be described as an experiential and mobile social arena (Cox, Clough and Marlow, 2008; Humphreys, 2007; Komito, 2011; Miller, 2011 in Postill and Pink, 2012: 3). I prefer the second method, considering both ITJ and JIL exist not only in the online sphere, but also in offline spheres. For instance, when ITJ had a bulletin that showed JIL’s—considered as—misleading thoughts, they put it online on their official website and also printed and distributed it at Bundaran Hotel Indonesia, Jakarta. At the end, even though the core of discourse circulation remains on Twitter, ITJ had to have some kind of offline public display activism to represent their movement to a broader audience. My preference for the second method is also related to the way I will to treat the textual data in this research. I will elaborate this matter in the next section. Constructing the Image of Model Authors for Valid Tweet Interpretation Twitter is a public space solely constituted by the circulation of discourses in the form of text. Since I want to discover the ideology of each religious public, tweet interpretation is needed. By discourse, I mean the use of sign a system to say something about something to someone in accordance with existing phonetic, lexical, syntactic rule, and style (Ricoeur in Dauenhauer and Pellauer, 2012) 1. In this sense, articulating discourse always involves an addresser (speaker or author) and addressee (hearer and reader); and it always tells some1 http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/ricoeur/ last accessed on May 15, 2013.


thing about a particular reality. Therefore, discourse in this article means everything that is articulated in any act of communication, including public speech. Since tweets are short-lived—only the latest 3,500 tweets are accessible from a Twitter account the role of publicly articulating discourse is more significant than the role of preserving discourse. This is why I see the act of tweeting as some kind of textual public speech. A complexity then emerges when public speech is delivered in textual manner like a tweet. The missing event of author (addresser) and reader (addressee) being together in the act of reading—as experienced in a speech event— causes this complexity. Ricoeur (in Paneerselvam, 1995: 128) defines such complexity as distanciation; it is when the text distances verbal articulation of discourse (speech event). Since writing only makes several characters or qualites of oral discourse explicit, such distance inevitably exists in every written discourse. This is why the absence of author in an act of reading implies a total freedom for reader in interpreting text. Ricoeur (in Uggla, 2010: 17) gives a perfect illustration for the act of reading. If the act of reading were a picnic attended by the author and the reader, the author would bring words, while the reader would bring meaning. This illustration also applies to the text-mediated relationship between a tweet author and tweet readers. Since I want to focus on the discourse tensions between JIL and ITJ regarding marginalized Islamic minority group topics, positioning myself as a tweet reader of the two religious publics is essential. Although I agree with Ricoeur, in this article I would prefer to utilize Umberto Eco’s (1992) thoughts about overinterpretation and underinterpretation as well. This is because I am going to talk about the ideology of two fighting religious publics. If I do not make valid interpretations, then it could become irrelevant to the reality I am trying to describe. Umberto Eco (1992: 23) criticizes the em

117

phasis of a reader’s right to produce meaning out of an act of reading. In his concern about the tendency to give the reader too much power in interpreting text, he suggests to consider the role of text and the author. This way, an effort to interpret a text would not end up in an irrelevant

overinterpreted or underinterpreted meaning. Eco (1992: 63-65) sees an act of reading as an activity where the reader makes conjectures about the text’s intention. He distinguishes empirical author from model author, and empirical reader from model reader. Relating to

Image 2. Interpreting well is all about validating meaning articulated by text to the image of model author in reader’s mind.

interpretation in the act of reading, the empirical reader is an actor who makes conjectures about the kind of model reader postulated by the text. This is because the intention of the text (intentio operis) is to produce a model reader who is able to figure out a model author that coincides with the intention of the text. If the intentio operis is the conjecture made by the reader, valid meaning is not located in the author’s intention nor in every reader’s interpretation. Instead, meaning is built upon the effort to validate the text by continuously building the image of the model author while interpreting. From Eco’s perspective, my position is no longer as a reader, but an empirical reader. Therefore, in interpreting the tweets I will construct the image of model author. While doing that, the knowledge I have about the author will be my guide. Conventional ethnography methods, especially interviews, become relevant to enrich my knowledge of the empirical author. My interviews with several opinion leaders of both publics were not conducted to grasp their intention in writing their tweets, but to give me insight about what kind of author they are. This

118

way, my effort to interpret tweets relevantly, is built upon a relevant foundation. Ideology and Hegemony, from publics to Public Public in this article is defined as an organized social totality in the form of a nation state’s population, namely Indonesians. The first consideration is the fact that both of the religious publics write their discourse in Bahasa Indonesia. This language is not widely used in any other country. Consequently, most of the audiences are Indonesians. The second consideration is that #IndonesiaTanpaJIL implies their mission to get rid of Liberal Islamic thoughts from Indonesia—and not the opposite. Furthermore, the mission of JIL is to create plural society in Indonesia. These are reasons why, if we want to see the influence of this ideological war between publics to the Public, defining the latter as Indonesia population is pretinent. To understand the motive behind this ideological war, Comaroff and Comaroff’s (1991) thoughts about ideology and hegemony is very useful. Ideology is a system of meaning, value,


and belief that can be articulated and abstracted as the worldview of any social group. This domain is inferior to hegemony. Hegemony is that order of signs and practice, relations and distinctions, images and epistemology perceived as natural. Paraphrasing Bourdieu (1977: 167 in Comaroff and Comaroff, 1992), hegemony are the things which are axiomatically received. It is commonly not a subject of explanation or argument. The power of hegemony prevents people from speaking or even thinking about it. Discourses that are still in the domain of ideology are still recognizable and articulable. Consequently, it is very susceptible to contesting by for the other discourses. Meanwhile the discourse in the domain of hegemony is too powerful to be even recognized or articulated, and this is why hegemony operates in silence. Combining Comaroff and Comaroff’s thought with Warner’s, I see tweeting in this ideological war as the efforts of each public to bring their ideology to the domain of hegemony. Discourse that operates in the domain of ideology is the discourse of publics, while the discourse that operates in the domain of ideology is the discourse that operates in a wide scope of publics—interpublics. When a discourse exists in the majority of publics, this discourse will silently order the Public. For instance, in the contemporary world, the insecure feeling of being unemployed can be traced to the hegemonic discourse of productivity. The Discursive Intersections between ITJ and JIL From my interpretations of four relevant serial tweets articulated by the opinion leaders of ITJ and JIL, I have mapped out several discursive intersections between them. The first intersection is about tolerance and pluralism. Despite the same idea about tolerance, which is to let differences exist, Ulil thinks of pluralism as a better attitude to live in diversity. That is why it is in his purpose to promote


plural society. With pluralis mind, one would be open to dialogue even in on environment full of differences. Dialog between different affiliations—in this context, inter-faith—does not mean to assimilate one to the others, or in the incrimination that usually strikes the pluralist, to make true of everything—especially faiths. Dialogues are promoted to make people learn from each other. In contrast, Iping thinks of tolerance as the best way to live in plurality (“pluralitas”). For him, plurality is a natural condition given by God to the world. Iping highlights the boundary of tolerance in a plural society. According to him, living together in difference is all well as long as people do not harm the others’ existence, particularly about the others’ content of belief. The pro-contra of Syiah and Ahmadiyah sects is the second intersection. Ulil thinks that the content of Syiah and Ahmadiyah’s faiths are the rights of their followers, therefore it is unethical for someone outside the sect to judge and evaluate their faiths. Differently, Iping considers the existence of Ahmadiyah and Syiah as blasphemous; therefore, both of the sects must stop claiming themselves as part of Islam. A bit of illustration of this pro-contra can be seen from the tweets below: @ulil: Saya ingin tutup tweet siang ini dg mengatakan: Syiah adalah bagian dr Islam. Juga Ahmadiyah. Mari kita bangun toleransi internal. @ulil: I want to close the tweet of this afternoon by saying that: Syiah is part of Islam. As well as Ahmadiyah. Let us build internal tolerance. @m_iping: Kalau Syiah disebut Islam, kenapa harus menempatkan Ali bin Abi Tholib begitu “istimewa” dan “menyingkirkan” sahabat Abu Bakar, Umar, dll.? @m_iping: If Syiah is part of Islam, why do they have to consider Ali bin Abi Tholib that “exceptional” and “getting rid” the other like Abu Bakar, Umar, etc?

119

The next discursive intersection concerns the boundary of tolerance. Ulil thinks that any group that campaigns and operates violence or intolerance is an intolerable kind of group— sarcastically refering to FPI and ITJ at once. Ulil even thinks that such groups should also be disbanded. Similarly, Iping and Hafidz also have standards of tolerance. For them, every difference—in this context, faith—can be tolerated as long as it holds its own principle of faith. That is why Ahmadiyah and Syiah, which are considered as blasphemous, should not be tolerated. They think that the claim of both sects as part of Islam can be dangerous, because both have essential differences that contradict with the teaching of Islam in majority—which is considered as the true teaching of Islam. They are afraid that if the contradiction of Islam is ignored, then it could blur the true Islam. The role of the state is the next discursive intersection. Ulil, influenced by liberal philosophy boldly refuses any active state intervention in intangible matters. For instance, Ahmadiyah’s religious content. In an interview, he likens the state government to a security guard. A security guard can only act if there is an objective interference going on, such as the strike to Ahmadiyah’s mosque. In the opposition, Iping tries to redefine the problem related to the violence to Islamic minority groups. For him, the violence is the implication of the unassertive attitude taken by the state towards Ahmadiyah and Syiah. Furthermore, in a serial tweet articulated by Hafidz, he even demands active intervention of the state to resolve the violence to international minority Islamic groups such as Palestine Muslim and Rohingya Myanmar. Tweets below illustrate how ITJ demands a more active states role in regulating religious groups: @m_iping: Bukannya pemerintah lambat mengatasi kekerasan berkedok agama, tetapi pemerintah tidak tegas terhadap faham/aliran/ sekte yang menyimpang.

@m_iping: It is not that the government is slow in taking care of religious-justified violence, but the government is not assertive enough to afield view/ism/sect. @hafidz_ary: pemerintah indonesia harus memimpin diplomasi menekan myanmar untuk menghentikan pembantaian. @hafidz_ary: Indonesian government should lead the diplomacy to push Myanmar to stop the massacre1.

Related to the last discursive intersection, Ulil once told me that the majority of the people should prioritize domestic violence over international violence. This shows how Ulil as JIL representation and Hafidz and Iping as ITJ representations live in different cosmologies. Ulil objectifies himself as a Muslim citizen of Indonesia, while Hafidz and Iping live in the international Muslim spirit; they objectify themselves as Muslims who are interconnected to other Muslims in the other parts of the world. Their sympathy goes beyond nation-states borders, but not beyond essential religious principle, akidah. Popular Discursive Topics and Controversy to Gain Audiences I agree with Warner that attention is the principle thing that matters in deciding whether an individual is a part of publics or not. The simple logic would be that without attention, articulation of discourse in public areas would not result in a collective such as publics, because there is no audience. Even so, in the context of ideological war between publics, attention is not the only factor that makes an individual as part of publics. As contesting publics tend to be other-oriented, giving attention to the discursive enemy then becomes part of the strategy in winning the ideological war. As attention is important in constituting a public, a massive amount of supporters is the key to winning an ideological war. As Ulil 1

120

He refers to the Rohingya massacre in Myanmar.


told me in an interview, if his Twitter audiences were; then his discursive tweets would be aimed at those who have not picked their political choice firmly, or in other words swing voters. Those who have not decided to join this ideological war by affiliating themselves with a public(s), have to be convinced to pick a side. That is why attracting as many audiences as public(s) is a fundamental strategy for both publics. Always audience means grats chance for more supporters. By having more supporters, a public(s) gets closer to bringing its discourse to hegemonic domain. Making one’s discourse hegemonic is an absolute victory in an ideological war. Discourse articulation about so many discursive intersections between ITJ and JIL is the form of ideological war between them. This article has discovered discursive topics related to the violence to Islamic minority groups, in which during 2012, so many Islamic minority groups became victims. Violence to woeds Ahmadiyah the sect happened in Indonesia on February 2012 in Cikeusik, Banten as well as Cianjur, West Java. In Cikeusik, the number of causalties reached three persons from the Ahmadiyah sect. In April 2012, an Islamic civil organization as well as the local people attacked an Ahmadiyah mosque in Tasikmalaya, West Java. In October 2012, FPI came and destroyed another Ahmadiyah mosque; FPI demanded Ahmadiyah to not celebrate Idul Adha. Related to another Islamic minority group, in August 2012, right on the day of Idul Fitri, Syiah followers in Sampang, Madura were attacked. In June 2012, the genocide of Rohingya in Myanmar took place. All of these cases of violence were broadcasted on mainstream TV news channel in 2012. People who had become opinionated also expressed their views on the violence in social media, especially Twitter; including Ulil, Hafidz, and Iping. The topics of violence to Islamic minority groups became popular, and I see this as the factor for Ulil, Hafidz, and Iping in expressing their opinions regarding these matters for the


sake of seeking audiences’ attention. Violence is not a strange thing in the contemporary world an people kill each other almost every day, but it is still considered as interesting commodity for the media. It is interesting because such a thing is against the universal morality of humankind, but still happens all the time. As people are attracted in giving sympathy to (sometimes support against) to the loss of humanity, violence has become a high rated topic in the media. A high rated topic is a good thing those publics that seek for audiences, and therefore articulating ideology an that has relevance with such a topic is seen as a strategic move for both publics. An empirical case in showing how such logic operates can be explored in the pro-contra of Ahmadiyah’s existence in Indonesia. The moral justification for killing the Ahmadiyah followers was the claim that Ahmadiyah is a blasphemous sect. Then both of the religious publics started to articulate their ideologies regarding this matter. ITJ with its ideology claims that Ahmadiyah is blasphemous with its belief in a prophet after Muhammad as well as a sacred book other than Al-Qur’an, but still calling themselves Muslim. In opposition, JIL thinks that Ahmadiyah’s existence must be supported because the followers have every right to believe what they want to believe. JIL also thinks that the concept of blasphemy is a problematic one, as there is no standardized value to judge whether one thing is blasphemous or not1. The ideological war between publics regarding Ahmadiyah’s Islamic status is not solely an articulation of this matter, but also represents the other values that construct the ideology of both publics. For instance, ITJ thinks that Al-Qur’an is the last holy book of Islam. Understandably, ITJ cannot deal with the fact that Ahmadiyah followers consider themselves as Muslim, while taking other book other than AlQur’an as holy. On the side of JIL, taking the 1 The topic of JIL’s monthly discussion on October 2012 was about blasphemy.

121

notion of the fulfilling Al-Qur’an as problematic, the claim cannot be madethat Ahmadiyah followers are not Muslim just because they have another holy book that was created by their prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. From this, I conclude that when an individual affirms one particular discourse, the chance for him/her to affiliate himself/herself to bigger discourse networks of a public becomes bigger as well. Ideal Order, Modernity and the Utopia of a Gardener The elaboration of this ideological war between ITJ and JIL reminds me of Zygmunt Bauman’s explanation about the modern human’s cultural logic. In his book about genocide, he highlights the logic of exclusivity in modern humans. This logic exists because of what he illustrates as the vision of a gardener (2008: 91-92). A gardener always has his/her utopia about the aesthetically ideal type of garden that he/she wants to create. When one aspect of a garden is defined as weeds, then the gardener will exterminate them for the sake of making real of his/her utopia about beautiful garden. Both ITJ and JIL have similar visions. They are two gardeners with different garden utopias. Each of them has his own parameter of what beautiful and what are weeds for the perfect garden they are trying to make. Their ideological war is based on their dream in realizing their blue print of a desired society. When one defines a particular entity of their social habitat as a weed, then exterminating them becomes a very possible choice. Nevertheless, it is not the life of living people that they are trying to

122

exterminate, but weedy ideology. For ITJ, JIL is a weed in their beautiful garden. A weed that supports the growth of the other weeds like Ahmadiyah, Syiah, LGBT, etc. Meanwhile for JIL it is ITJ that threatens their utopia of a pluralist society. Within this ideological war, both of the religious publics try to kill each other intra-linguistically, solely because they do not agree with each other’s design. Twitter, an inclusive public space then changed into a space full of exclusivities. Some colleagues who have given some attention to my writing suggested me to close this work with a statement about how culture, once again, has become a more determining force than the artificial force of technology. However, even though my writing is heading to such conclusion, I do believe that it is not about which one is more determining than the other one. It is about how technology triggers particular cultural practices in specific contexts. In this context, when two publics are trying to gain supporters for the sake of their concept of a better society, Twitter triggers the cultural practice of exclusion. Acknowledgment Thank you to Pusat Kajian Antropologi Universitas Indonesia (Center of Anthropological Studies Universitas Indonesia) for accommodating this research, Imam Ardhianto for the chance to work together and for taking role as my mentor, Ezra M. Choesin for the wonderful academic supervision, Ignatia Dyah Hapsari for informal peer-review.


Bibliography Books Bauman, Zygmunt. 2008 Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press. Comaroff, Jean., & John Comaroff. 1991 Of Revelation and Revolution: Christianity, colonialism, and consciousness in South Africa. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Eco, Umberto. 1992 Interpretation and Overinterpretation. New York: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Uggla, Bengt K. 2010 Ricoeur, Hermeneutics, and Globalization. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Warner, Michael. 2005 Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books. Academic Journal Articles Hirschkind, Charles., & Brian Larkin. 2008 “Media and The Political Forms of Religion.” Social Text, 26 (3), 3-5. Neal, Zachary. 2010 “Seeking Common Ground: Three Perspectives on Public Space.” Urban Design and Planning, 163 (2): 59-66 Postill, John., & Pink, Sarah. 2012 “Social Media Ethnography: The Digital Researcher in a Messy Web.” Media International Australia. Paneerselvam, S. 1994 “Metaphorical Reference in Paul Ricoeur: A Study.” Indian Philosophical Quarterly, XXI (1), 44-52.

1995 “Paul Ricoeur's Hermeneutical Theory of Discourse.” Indian Philosophical Quarterly, XXII (2), 123-132.

Internet: Dauenhauer, Bernard., David Pellauer. "Paul Ricoeur." 2012 The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosoph. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ win2012/entries/ricoeur/ Last accessed in on May 15, 2013.


123

• Panduan Penulisan untuk Kontributor

• Guidelines for contributors

Antropologi Indonesia diterbitkan dengan tujuan ikut mengembangkan ilmu antropologi sosial dan budaya di Indonesia. Jurnal ini menggunakan sistem mitra bebestari (Peer-Review) dalam proses pemilihan naskah yang akan diterbitkan. Redaksi menerima sumbangan artikel baik yang bersifat teoretis, maupun hasil penelitian etnografi. Karangan tersebut tidak harus sejalan dengan pendapat redaksi. Kriteria artikel yang dapat dimuat dalam jurnal ini dapat dipisah menjadi empat bagian. Pertama, adalah artikel hasil penelitian etnografi atau kualitatif mengenai topik tertentu yang berkaitan dengan kelompok etnik/kelompok sosial di Indonesia; Kedua, Hasil penelitian terapan, kolaboratif, dan juga hasil penelitian yang dihasilkan dari pengalaman keterlibatan penulis dengan masyarakat/komuniti, semisal program-program intervensi yang berhubungan dengan relasi kebudayaan, politik, lingkungan, dan pembangunan; Ketiga, adalah Pembahasan/diskusi mengenai teori/metodologi dalam ilmu antropologi atau ilmu-ilmu sosial lainnya yang berkaitan dengan diskursus teoritik di antropologi; dan terakhir adalah tinjauan buku terhadap buku teks antropologi atau ilmu-ilmu sosial lainnya. Buku yang dikaji berlaku untuk buku yang diterbitkan dalam 3 tahun terakhir untuk terbitan dalam negeri dan 5 tahun terakhir untuk terbitan luar negeri. Artikel yang masuk masih akan disunting oleh Dewan Redaksi. Naskah dapat dikirimkan kepada Redaksi melalui email [email protected] dalam format program MS Word, spasi rangkap, dengan ukuran kertas letter dan margin normal. Panjang tulisan maksimal 5000 kata. Mohon agar disertakan abstrak maksimal 250 kata dalam bahasa Inggris dan sekaligus abstrak berbahasa Indonesia. Disertai dengan minimal tiga kata kunci dan maksimal enam kata kunci. Penulis juga diharapkan mengirimkan alamat kontak dan nomor telepon. Sistematika penulisan harus dibuat dengan mencantumkan pendahuluan, pembahasan/ulasan (jika artikel bersifat teoritik/metodologi bagian ini adalah ulasan yang mendukung argumen di sub bab pertama) , dan penutup /kesimpulan. Semua catatan dalam artikel hendaknya tersusun rapi dengan ketentuan penulisan ilmiah yang berlaku. Begitu pula dengan catatan kaki, agar ditulis di bagian bawah halaman, bukan pada bagian belakang artikel. Kemudian untuk daftar pustaka dibuat merujuk pada gaya penulisan AAA (American Anthropologist Association) Style, dengan beberapa modifikasi sebagaimana ditunjukan pada contoh berikut abjad sebagai berikut:

Antropologi Indonesia was published to develop and enrich scientific discussion for scholars who put interest on socio-cultural issues in Indonesia. These journals apply peer-reviewed process in selecting high quality article. Editors welcome theoretical or research based article submission. Author’s argument doesn’t need to be in line with editors. the criteria of the submitted article covers the following types of article: first, the article presents the results of an ethnographic/qualitative research in certain topic and is related with ethnic/social groups in Indonesia; second, the article is an elaborated discussion of applied and collaborative research with strong engagement between the author and the collaborator’s subject in implementing intervention program or any other development initiative that put emphasizes on social, political, and cultural issues; Third, a theoretical writing that elaborates social and cultural theory linked with the theoretical discourse of anthropology, especially in Indonesia anthropology; last, the article is a critical review of anthropological reference and other ethnography books that must be published at least in the last 3 years. Submitted article will be selected and reviewed by editorial boards. The submission should be in soft copy format and must be sent to journal.ai@gmail. com in Ms Word file format, double spaces, with letter size paper. The length of the article should not exceed 5000 word. Please also attach abstract with maximum of 250 words length in English and Bahasa, and six keywords. Author should write their institution postal address and also the phone contact in first part of the article. Article should meet the following structures: introduction, supporting data and the ground of author argument (for articles that are theoretical or methodological should include theoretical discussion and literature study), and conclusion. All references in the articles should be neatly put in a proper format. Footnotes should be written on the bottom part of every page, do not put them at the end of article. Bibliography should follow the AAA (American Anthropologist Association) Style, with some adjustment as follow:

Geertz, C. 1984 ‘Tihingan: Sebuah Desa di Bali’, dalam Koentjaraningrat (peny.) Masyarakat Desa di Indonesia. Jakarta: Lembaga Penerbit Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia. Hlm. 246–274. Koentjaraningrat. 1974 Manusia dan Kebudayaan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Penerbit Djambatan. Manoppo-Watupongoh, G.Y.J. 1995 ‘Wanita Minahasa’, Antropologi Indonesia 18(51):64–74.

If it is a chapter in a book, or an article in a journal please give the title of book/journal and the page numbers. In the case of journal please give the Volume and issue number. e.g.

Gilmore, D. 1990 Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Geertz, C. 1980 ‘Tihingan: Sebuah Desa di Bali’, in Koentjaraningrat (ed.) Masyarakat Desa di Indonesia. Jakarta: Lembaga Penerbit Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia. Pp.246–274. Marvin, G. 1984 ‘The Cockfight in Andalusia, Spain: Images of the Truly Male’, Anthropological Quarterly 57(2):60–70.

copyright © 2013 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Pusat Kajian Antropologi, Departemen Antropologi, Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Indonesia Lantai 1, Gedung B, Kampus Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424 Phone/Fax: +62 21 78881032 e-mail: [email protected] Website: http://journal.ui.ac.id/jai

ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA VOL. 34 NO. 2 2013

The Ritual of Khanduri Bungong Kayèe 88 (An Ethnographic Study in West Labuhan Haji-South Aceh) Abdul Manan Upaya Pencegahan Perceraian 101 Berbasis Keluarga Luas dan Institusi Lokal dalam Masyarakat Minangkabau di Sumatera Barat Fachrina dan Rinaldi Eka Putra Ideological War in Inclusive Twitter: #IndonesiaTanpaJIL versus Jaringan Islam Liberal Sindhunata Hargyono

113

Bundo Kanduang: (hanya) Pemimpin di Rumah (Gadang) Zainal Arifin

124

Memahami Sistem Pengetahuan 134 Budaya Masyarakat Pegunungan Tengah, Jayawijaya, Papua dalam Konteks Kebencanaan Leny Veronika

‘Pokok Hari Nyalah’: 152 Catatan Budaya (Lokal) dalam Membaca Perubahan Iklim (Global) Pangeran P.P.A. Nasution

Kekuasaan yang Bekerja 164 Melalui Perlawanan: Kasus Penguasaan Hutan oleh Masyarakat dan Perusahaan Prudensius Maring Karakteristik Anak Jalanan 176 dan Bentuk-Bentuk Kekerasan terhadap Anak Jalanan di Kota Padang Provinsi Sumatera Barat Erwin

Vol. 34 No. 2 Juli-Desember 2013

Recommend Documents