Intellectual evolution (animism-magis-religion)

03.22 Unknown 1 Comments

Pura di Kabupaten Pekalongan, tempat masyarakat Hindu Jawa melaksanakan puja bakti.

 Baik Taylor maupun frazer menggunakan  teori intellectual evolution (used Darwin term), kelangsungan hidup, dan progresivitas untuk membangun teori masing-masing tentang asal usul agama. Thesis yang akan mereka tunjukan adalah sesungguhnya jenis kecerdasan manusia di dunia itu sama. Untuk membuktikannya, keduanya berusaha menarik benang merah atau kesamaan berbagai bentuk kepercayaan. Jika taylor mengurai animisme pada primitive culture, maka Frazer mengeksplorasi berbagai bentuk kepercayaan, ritual-ritual dari berbagai belahan bumi untuk menarik benang merah, sehingga memperkuat thesis mereka.  
Frazer berpendapat bahwa kepercayaan yang muncul pertama bukankah agama dengan konsep tuhan. Oleh karena itu, dia sepakat dengan Taylor bahwa  agama adalah keyakinan terhadap sesuatu yang spiritual. The essence of religion like mythology, seems to be animism.  Animisme adalah kepercayaan terhadap ‘anima’ atau spirit yang terdapat di dalam tiap-tiap benda. Kemudian, Frazer menambahkan, tidak hanya anima yang berkembang sebagai upaya untuk bertahan hidup (survive – Taylor term), tetapi juga magic, sebagai sarana ritual maupun upaya mengendalikan kekuatan alam.
Bagi Frazer, Magic merupakan elemen penting dalam memahami gejala alam maupun fenomena berdasarkan kemampuan rasional manusia saat itu. Dengan prinsip imitasi dan kontak, Frazer mengungkapkan bahwa manusia berfikir secara sederhana dengan menganggap hukum alam adalah impersonal, constant and universal. Agama muncul ketika mereka sadar terdapat suatu bentuk kekuatan personal yang lebih kuat dari pada spirit-spirit.
The sympathetic magician are basically of two types; imitative, the magic that connect things on the principle of similarity; and second, contagious the magic of contact, which connect on the principle of attachment. In the one case, is ‘like affect like’ in other hand part affect part. For example, when Russian Peasant pour water through a screen in a time of drought, they imagine that because the filtered falling water lookslike a thundershower, sprinkling of this short will actually force rain to fall from the sky. (Pals, 2005 pp. 36)
Ketika intellectual manusia mengalami perkembangan progresifitas, mereka sadar bahwa hal-hal terkait alam dapat dijelaskan secara scientific dan mulai meninggalkan praktik magis. Frazer percaya bahwa animism dan magis hanyalah tahap awal manusia yang akan terus mengalami perubahan menuju yang lebih baik (read evolusi), dimana animism digantikan kompleks polytheism, disusul dengan polytheism dan berakhir pada monotheism. Adapun magis digantikan oleh ilmu pengetahuan, yang mampu menjelaskan hukum alam secara lebih rasional.
Pada bagian ini, teori Frazer justru menemui kejanggalan. Dengan menggunakan teori evolusi, secara tidak langsung menjelaskan, bentuk keyakinan terhadap spiritual berkembang. Kelemahan pengertian ‘perkembangan’ akan sulit diterima jika yang dimaksud adalah konsep agama yang baru lebih baik dari konsep agama sebelumnya. Terutama ketika konsep agama semakin mendekati rasional (dipengaruhi science) kemudian konsep magis sebagai salah satu penopang agama mulai ditinggalkan.
Pada kenyataannya sekarang ini, praktik-praktik ‘animism’, polytheism atau magis pun yang mendamping bentuk keyakinan spiritual tersebut, masih banyak ditemukan atau diyakini sebagian masyarakat, bahkan di dunia modern. Meskipun mereka telah mengalami perkembangan dengan ilmu pengetahuan, namun tidak melepaskan prinsip-prinsp magis. Terutama, kebudayaan dunia timur yang masih menjaga magis dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, misalnya di Jawa kepercayaan tertentu yang berhubungan dengan mitos tetap terjaga, seperti sedekah bumi atau sedekah laut.
Memang sebelumnya magis diciptakan manusia untuk menjelaskan fenomena alam yang pada saat itu manusia belum bisa membuktikan secara scientific. Ungkapan magis pun bahkan tidak rasional, hanya berdasarkan imajinasi adanya spirit pada benda atau dipersonifikasikan menjadi dewa. Namun, akan menjadi kurang tepat, jika rasional menggeser peran magis. Hal itu karena magis juga mempunyai peran mitos, untuk menjelaskan makna, nilai atau hubungan batin benda-benda di sekitar manusia. Bahkan, di negara paling modern pun, praktek-praktek magis masih ditemukan. Seperti voodoo di Amerika Latin, ritual penyembangan Amaterasu (dewa matahari) di Jepang, bahkan ritual sesaji laut di Jawa.      
Kesulitan teori Frazer juga ditemukan dalam proses evolusi agama. Konsep tentang Tuhan mengalami perkembangan sesuai dengan kondisi dan kebutuhan manusia, begitu juga dalam agama. Apakah yang dimaksud dengan Frazer itu, artinya monotheism lebih baik dari pada polytheism.  Lalu, bagaimana pengertian ‘lebih baik’ itu diterjelaskan? Apakah semakin jelas gambaran tuhan secara rasional di dalam agama, menunjukkan bahwa agama itu lebih baik dari pada lainnya. Saat ini, abad 21, masih terdapat berbagai bentuk agama yang bahkan tidak mempersonalkan tuhan, atau tidak memiliki gambaran tentang tuhan (seperti salah satu sekte Budha), beberapa juga dikenal polytheism (kong hu chu) atau bentuk kepercayaan tuhan bersamaan dengan anismisme (kejawen). Apakah agama-agama tersebut tidak lebih baik dari Kristen, Yahudi, maupun Islam. Tentu saja, bentuk agama maupun kepercayaan memiliki hak untuk mengatakan mereka benar dan baik.Bagaimana pun, Frazer memberikan kontribusi penting untuk mengumpulan data-data tentang ritual-ritual di dunia yang berdasarkan animism dan magis. Dia juga memetakan, mengambil kesamaan, dan menganalisa realitas agama yang menyejarah. Namun demikian, teori yang disusun berdasarkan thesis evolusinya akan sulit diaplikasikan atau dibuktikan.  

1 komentar:

Theory of Religion, Durkheim’s Theorys

02.37 Unknown 1 Comments

Durkheim’s concept of solidarity contributes to the theory of religion studies. The solidarity is unified system of belief and practices relative to sacred into single moral community. Every activity that contributes toward solidarity is called by Sacred. In the contrary, the other things that against or do not support solidarity means profane. It tells how individual has to commit for solidarity in their community. The contribution of solidarity’s concept in theory of religion is its arguments why ‘religion’ can not be separated by community.
The concept of solidarity based on practices and ideas that are applied by people. The ideas are the belief of people that force them to do for the sacral. The practices are the activities of people in communal agendas that need their sympathy to feel each other’s in solidarity. For examples people pray is looked by Durkheim’s theory, this activity is not about spiritual thing they did, but the activity contribute for the community as symbol status as the adherents of certain religion. Both of practices and ideas will be sacred if they support solidarity in their community.
The practices of sacred in the solidarity have many responsibilities to be followed. The responsibility comes to be social power that lead in to some roles, taboo, and obligations as a sacred thing. Because the members are connected each other’s, they should be loyal for solidarity. If people do everything that obligated in this system, they will feel happiness and make more strengthen the community. Going to mosque for praying is the way for people to contribute the solidarity. Even though, people prefer to not go to masque and pray in the home. Praying is no single thing that created by single people, but praying is a part of community to identify people as member. A person pray is not only for her/his self, but also for the solidarity in the community. If people leave pray, so they will feel guilty. Praying is taught in the community. It means the practices that support solidarity become sacred thing that force people do or not do something.
The opposite thing of the sacred is the profane that against the solidarity. This profane also based on ideas and practices but have no contribution for solidarity. Every activity is only for their selves just to be a profane. People who watch movie alone in the room is profane. Because watching movie, if this activity is done not to contribute the community, so it will a profane. However, at the same times, people have more than one status of community’s member. People can be the student, son, citizen, and others organization’s member that have different requirement to contribute the solidarity. The thing that is profane for one community sometimes at the same times will be the sacred in other community. People not go to ‘majlis ta’lim’ (community) is profane, but do not attend the agenda because they should go to school. Going to school is to be the sacred because this activity will contribute the community (school).               
The other thing is important to support the idea of solidarity is totem. Durkheim did not mention about spiritual thing such as God or The Supreme Being to explain why people do rituals, but he told about totem. The totem is directed people to the sacred. The totem is to be the sacred thing because it is the center of orientation religious activities. The rituals that produce the connection between the members are to be the main support ideas to unite people in the single moral community. By Durkheim’s framework, Ka’bah as the important direction for Moslem is totem. By directing toward Ka’bah, Moslems have the connection to be a part of community. This symbol contributes to unite people in the solidarity.
Religion only can be found in the community that requires solidarity. The belief system is the ideas to make strengthen community by some doctrines, law and taboo, that forced people to do. The religious practices have contribution to support community. Practices will shape the traditions and rituals to condition the solidarity. Thus, the concept of solidarity explains religion as social construction that is built by people.

1 komentar:

Kerancuan Politik dalam Polemik Agama

22.09 Unknown 1 Comments

Peserta Sekolah Pengelolaan Keragaman angakatan ke IV berdialog dengan
penganut kebatinan Noto Bawono Bantul Yogyakarta
Proses religionalization in Hefner term ( ‘islamization’ and christianization – spesific term by Picard) memberi dampak pada marginalisasi ‘adat’, ‘kepercayaan’ dan sistem lainnya yang yang tidak tercover dalam pengertian ‘agama’ oleh pemerintah ( and influenced by certain political religious leader). Namun demikian, bukan berarti mereka (penganut kepercayaan) tidak mengalami perkembangan atau justru berkurang, tetapi lebih pada bentuk proses transformasi penyesuaian diri. Sebenarnya, it is not clear how to read the thesis and sosio-politic argument of Hefner, meskipun it is helped by using Picard’s framework about power relation between state, religion and ‘adat’ in Indonesia. Proses transformasi tersebut tidak bisa hanya dibuktikan dengan statistik yang menunjukkan angka penganut ‘abangan’ semakin sedikit, tetapi juga dampak proses dari ‘internalisasi’ dan ‘asimilasi’ yang menghasilkan ‘produk baru’ dari tindakan masyarakat.  
Permasalahan yang membingungkan adalah, Hefner membandingkan dengan pendekatan antropologi kondisi ‘abangan’ (red side) dengan ‘santri’ (white side), yang dihasilkan oleh Cliffort Geertz (p. 73-80), namun juga menghadapkan kondisi kedua golongan tersebut secara politik (clash at 1965-66, p.82-84). Dalam kacamata Picard, hal itu bisa terjadi karena terdapat proses reduksi yang semakin sempit dari proses pendefinian agama, warganegara harus beragama (akibat dari tragedi pasca-pki) dan meluasnya puritanisme agama (khususnya Islam- pasca reformasi). Namun demikian, dengan menggunakan dua pendekatan tersebut menjadi sulit dibedakan bagaimana sebenarnya hubungan antara kedua golongan tersebut. Its needed to consider how to explain ‘red side’ as kind of system of belief in Indonesia rather than many argumens argue why it can collaps by facing of ‘white side’.


Proses transformasi ‘abangan’ memang sulit kembali dalam bentuknya tanpa berafiliasi dengan agama tertentu (sebagai tuntutan negara), namun dalam proses tersebut mereka tetap bisa mengamalkan apa yang mereka yakini, menggunakan simbol-simbol lama dengan makna yang baru. Hefner memang menyebutkan masih adanya berbagai ritual, namun dalam jumlah yang sedikit dan tetap berkesimpulan bahwa abangan collapsed. Padahal, sebagian besar masyarakat pantai maupun pegunungan terutama di Jawa masih melestarikan ‘the cult of village guardians and ancestors that lay as the heart of rural abangan’ (p.87). Ritual tersebut memang sudah dikemas dengan ‘doa’ (pengaruh Islam) tetapi tetap mempertahankan sesajen, proses ritual, lambang dan symbol, serta keyakinan atas ‘yang lain’. Bahkan pada ritual-ritual yang telah banyak masuk dalam tradisi islam jawa seperti upacara kelahiran (ngapati, mithoni, lahir, selapanan), kematian (pasar, nyatus, nyewu, and haul) dan others rituals. Pada ritual tersebut, masyarakat santri pun melakukannya dengan jenis makanan berkat (bancaan- sebagai ungkapan rasa syukur), seperti harus ingkung (ayam utuh), apem, bubur merah putih dan lain-lain. Oleh karena itu, kebijakan negara (factor politik) memang penting terkait hak-hak penganut kebatinan, dan pengakuan identitas mereka, tetapi hal itu tidak bisa menjadi ukuran bahwa kepercayaan ‘kebatinan’ akan punah di Indonesia.               

1 komentar:

The Secularized Religion

21.36 Unknown 1 Comments

Agama sebagai alat politik justru mendapatkan ruang yang lebih potensial pada saat proses sekulerisasi. Bukan sebaliknya, bahwa sekulerisasi adalah upaya untuk memisahkan peran agama dalam sistem politik sebagai tuntutan dari modernisasi. Talal Asad fokus mengkritisi agama sebagai epistimologi yang mendapatkan pengaruh sekulerisasi , dan agama memiliki peran penting dalam proses tersebut.  Talal Asad mencoba menghubungan sekulerisme, agama dan nation-state menjadi satu kerangka geneologi (Foucault term). Karena proses tawar menawar antara kekuasaan (politik) dan agama masih terus berlanjut, maka menurutnya, sekularisasi ( as Jose Casanova definition) tidak akan pernah terjadi. Namun demikian, menurut saya, agama juga akan kehilangan esensinya pada proses ini, mengidetifitikasinya kembali akibat pengaruh dialektika pada public sphere dan memaksakan diri untuk kepentingan-kepentingan negara.
Jika salah satu elemen sekularisasi adalah the privatization of religion from politics, maka Talal Asad menghadapkannya dengan deprivatisasi agama ketika agama menjadi an integral part of modern politics. Sebagai bagian dari kategorisasi antropologi, seorang pemeluk agama tidak mungkin melepaskan struktur diskursus agamanya ketika memasuki ruang publik. Dengan cerdas, ketika sekularisasi menuntut menghilangkan domain of faith, maka deprivatisasi agama akan berfikir bagaimana the conscience agar tetap diterima. Meskipun demikian, Talal Asad tidak berhenti dan tetap mempertanyakan otoritas yang bagaimanakah agar hal itu bisa terjadi? Pada pertanyaan ini, saya berpikir, bukankah akan lebih ambigu ketika tidak lagi bisa dibedakan antara kepentingan agama dan negara dalam kacamata sekularisasi.

Talal Asad menghindari ‘the essentialized (“religious)” agency’, menurutnya, akan lebih signifikan jika perkembangan sekularisasi disebabkan ‘the difference the outcome yielded’, artinya akan lebih meredefinisi agama menjadi politik. Dengan demikian, dia menempatkan agama sebagai hasil transisi sejarah yang juga mengalami kontruksi, reformed, and plotted. Oleh karena itu, keberadaan nationalism sebagai konsekuensi dari nation-state, sama religiousnya dengan agama itu sendiri. Masalahnya adalah bukankah penerimaan pengertian agama oleh negara dalam sikap nasionalisme (secularized religion) hanya menjadi kepentingan politik belaka?   

1 komentar:

Foucault dan Paradigma Agama

21.33 Unknown 1 Comments

Investigasi foucault terhadap ilmu pengetahuan tidak hanya menempatkan objek sebagai konstruksi relasi kuasa menggunakan system diskursus, tetapi juga ruang untuk problemalisasi. Hal itu dilakukan dengan menemukan gejala peristiwa-peristiwa yang termajinalkan di episteme (Gutting,2005,pp.103). Selain itu, meskipun diketahui terdapat pengaruh politik pada objek yang memberikan solusi dan definisi, namun yang menjadi fokus, adalah terdapat alasan-alasan untuk mempertanyakan politik (Foucault,1984, interview). Menurut saya, proses tersebut menjadi penting untuk menemukan anomali-anomali yang terdapat pada situasi normal (paradigma Kuhn) seperti, contoh tentang kata agama di Indonesia dan konsekuensinya.[1]
Pengertian agama di Indonesia tidak lepas dari bangunan relasi kuasa yang terjadi sebagai kebijakan politik. Agama resmi yang diterima di Indonesia adalah Islam, Kristen, Katolik, Hindu, Budha dan Konghucu [2] (episteme). Namun, pertanyaan yang diajukan bukan hanya bagaimana sejarah kebijakan tersebut lahir (sebagai tindakan politis), tetapi juga mengapa Pemerintah menentukan agama resmi (polemict). Oleh karena itu, adat maupun tradisi keagamaan pada sekelompok masyarakat di luar agama resmi, masuk dalam pengertian kepercayaan (marjinalisasi). Tidak diakuinya tradisi keagaamaan suku (baca indigenous religion) menjadi agama, menyebabkan mereka harus tetap menjadi pemeluk salah satu agama resmi, tetapi juga masih menyelenggarakan tradisi-tradisi sebagaimana kepercayaan mereka (problemalisasi).
Meskipun demikian, factor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kebijakan tidak hanya pada politics. Menggunakan sisi lain theory Foucault, terdapat factor estetik yang kuat kenapa hingga sekarang kebijakan tersebut masih berlaku. Konstitusi tersebut dibuat dengan tujuan untuk melindungi dari penodaan dan penyimpangan terhadap pokok-pokok ajaran agama.[3]


[1] This theory used by Sita Hidayah, How the world would have to be if there is no “Agama” in Indonesia, Gadjah Mada University, master's thesis, 2008.
[2] undang-undang No 1/PNPS/1965 yang menyebutkan ada enam agama di Indonesia: Islam, Kristen, Katolik, Hindu, Budha dan Konghucu, sangat kontradiktif dengan Surat Edaran (SE) Menteri Dalam Negeri No 477/ 74054/ BA.012/ 4683/95 tertanggal 18 November 1978 yang menyatakan bahwa agama yang diakui pemerintah ada lima: Islam, Kristen, Katolik, Hindu dan Budha, meskipun belakangan Konghucu diakui kembali sejak masa pemerintahan Abdurrahman Wahid. Eko Marhendi (Desember 20,2007) Kebebasan Beragama dan Implementasi HAM di Indonesia, http://ekomarhaendy.wordpress.com/.
No law that says 1/PNPS/1965 six religions in Indonesia: Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism, very contradictory with Circular (SE) The Minister of Home Affairs No. 477/74054 / BA.012 / 4683 / 95 dated 18 November 1978 stating that the government recognized religion there are five: Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism and Buddhism, although Confucianism was recognized recently returned from the reign of Abdurrahman Wahid. Eko Marhendi (December 20.2007) Religious Freedom and Human Rights Implementation in Indonesia, http://ekomarhaendy.wordpress.com/.

[3] Nasaruddin Umar, Antara Negara dan Agama Negara, at http://kemenag.go.id/file/dokumen/AntaraNegara.pdf 

1 komentar:

Government’s Paradigm on Religious policy

21.23 Unknown 1 Comments

Based on reading about Kuhn’s Theory, I get that the paradigm is established in a certain pattern that makes it survive and try to not find conflict. Kuhn criticizes the form of sciences that ignore anomalies. In fact, everything is forced to accept the paradigm. But if scientists find anomalies, and continue to accumulate them, that caused the crisis, so it will encourage the scientific revolution (Okasha, 2002, p. 82). In this case, Thomas Kuhn makes an important contribution to counter stagnation in the development of science. So, I’ll try to use this theory to learn more about the government’s paradigm on religious policy.  
Previously, I was confused to understand what is meant by revolution paradigm, because a paradigm is a pattern that is based on the historical perspective. In my opinion, it would be very difficult to shift or even to change the paradigm that has staunchly provisions. I asked to myself why Kuhn's theory is needed to initiate academic courses in religious studies, and followed by Foucault’s theory. Then, I remember a question in class, why the Government of Indonesia uses the word of ‘agama’ that implies on the rights and obligations of citizens.
The whole discourse of religion, including the understanding of religion in Indonesia, is paradigm. Government establish this paradigm by making laws, determining official religions are accepted, forming the ministry of religion, and with the help of values ​​and beliefs that form the religious community. So, people should be on the condition of 'normal', while not normal will not get their rights as citizens. That is not normal as citizen who does not an official religion. Every religious tradition outside official religions will be named by ‘adat’. The goverment let poeple doing their traditions as ‘adat’ which is differ them from religious activities, and as long as do not disturb ‘official religions belief’.

At this point, the theory Foucoult be required to explain the findings are anomalies, because of something historical (see paradigm) contains political elements. Found that the act of sacrificing the rights of citizens to be 'normal' it was not good. So, to create a revolutionary paradigm should find plenty anomaly by showing that the paradigm can not be used again. Example, found many violations of human rights caused by the paradigm.

1 komentar:

Look at Religion in the Veil and Food

21.14 Unknown 1 Comments

The distinct of religion’s definition between what it should to be and what people make it to be can be reconciled in the ‘everyday religion’ framework. The binary opposition sometimes happens in the way of finding ‘identity’, such as ethnic or religious background. In other cases, its distinct grows up and adopts from the situation that people have more ‘space’ to respond how religion to be. By connecting the ‘distinct’ that explained in the symbol of veil (Nancy Hefner, 2011) and Unsynagogued Jews (Davidmen, 2007), will be found how ‘everyday religion’ work. Thus, the religion narrative can be explored by various sources and seen as part of social construction rather than examine them as ‘the anomaly’ of religion.
The veil for Javanese women has a wide range of interpretations in accordance to government policy, educational opportunity, and tradition. The veil becomes the symbol of government’s opponent when the veil has a power to be demand from democratic reform (Nancy Hefner, 2011, p. 159). Veil’s interpretation is also influenced by educational opportunity of women to choose what good thing for them, rather than symbol domestic insulation, but it more heightened public participation (p. 157). In other way, veil is also a part of protecting moral boundaries in social urban situation. Even thought, at the contrary as a tradition of ‘pious’ (santri) religion, ne-traditionalists begun asking to them who impose “Arab culture” on Indonesian women (p. 162). The veil is not only preview the greater religious piety but also how women try to have more freely for mobility and prosperity (p.163). Nancy Hefner succeeded to correlate the issue about gender, politic, economic in the symbol of Veil as a part of Muslimah ‘identity’.

Other cases, Americans Unsynagogoed Jews built their identities as Jews in the different way in adjusting to modernity and the generation of immigrant. Even thought they do not adopting particular creed (Davidsonn, 2007, p. 58) but the Jewish tradition still maintained as practices compatible with their modern lives. Instead of blessing over candles, wine and challah (special foods on Shabbat), they prefer in the other special food on Friday night, such as Chinese food or pizza (ibid). In this case, the ethnicity and religion can not be separated in their identity, but they make “the new tradition” in the way of adopting modernization. 

1 komentar:

Everyday Religion

19.57 Unknown 1 Comments

What view of religion underlies (or is assumed by) the approach of “Everyday Religion”?
The view of religion in the approach of Everyday Religion is about the role of of religion in society. everyday religion make the distance with what called by official religion, therefore it implies the activities that occur outside of organized religious events and instititutionalized, although that does not mean nothing with them. The issues that discussed on everyday religion is around how by those viwe, Everyday Religion locate and define religion, or propably religion is no where in this term. It refer to about where religion happen and how it mingles with other aspcet of social life (Ammerman, pp. 9). In certain cases, everyiday religion formed as a result of negotiations by the minority institutions to their daily activities. It will show how religious and spiritual meaning in it remain useful beyond the boundaries of the institution. How do those two things collectively identified and recognized. Negotiations between the authorities and religious offocial everyday practices religion will always happen and competing.    
In light of our discussions on definition (and construction) of religion, how does “everyday religion” approach help in overcoming the difficulties in defining religion?
The approach of everyday religion meets some problems on its research. Most of the terms, categories and assessment of the research object can not be separated from the influence of institutions and scholars. As well as looking at everyday life of Ahmadiyya as community of religious minority. It is not simply released them without comparing with other major Islamic groups, which have greater authority, especially in Indonesia. The difficulty of this approach is caused by differences in the definition of 'religious' and the right to use something called a religious or "religious properly". Official religious biased Everyday Religion become difficult to avoid. For example the veil and its function, the veil is not only the symbol of religion, there many thing that rise up from the veil. The function of veil can be political issues, fashion, and other goals.
Another difficulty is found in Indonesia for everyday approach to religion is the same object; different terms are used, about religion and culture. Sometimes, the object of the research activities related to religious issues instead categorized in the local culture. It is one of effect the process of ‘religionization’ by defining the term of ‘ religion’ in Indonesia by the government, that are also included in citizen education thus construct their epistemology on religious studies.      



The insider/outsider perspectives with an alternative methodological basis, ­which is “a dialogical and reflexive engagement between scholars and the religious people they study” (see p. 255) Diana Eck also speaks about the “dialogical method”. Please briefly discuss the main characteristics of the “dialogical method”. Do you think this would compromise the aspiration to objectivity?
The character of dialogical method is a way to check our own subjectivities. Diana criticized the method that is used by orientalists in conducting research and interacting with objects. They understand the object only as "the others" like inanimate objects to be formed and constructed. With the methods of dialogue, Diana tried to fix it. Object of research has to be confirmed, they have rights to any understanding of the research results. By listening to the "object" and dialogue, the researcher was able to confirm and to check their subjectivity. Thus this method is called by "the dialogue for understanding". In academic religious studies, dialogue is not necessarily about interreligious dialogue. Diana only tries to insist that dialogue is important on the research as long as the technique or its method. That opinion is different from what is expressed by Dunbar, who explained that interreligious dialogue is an important part of academic religious studies.

The researchers seek to constantly improve their research by various methods for achieving the goal of objectivity. However, the objectivity will be difficulty when the biases affect the research process. Besides, researcher’s subjectivity and the object itself had negotiated. Therefore, the dialogue becomes important in this method. Researchers with the status of insider and outsider have the right to place their self as an observer and participant based Knott’s perspective. So, it can be helped to do by using the method of dialogue for continuing reflection amongst scholars and religious people they study.

1 komentar:

Interreligious Dialogue as Opportunity

19.50 Unknown 1 Comments

The most important way for solving religious conflict is interreligious dialogue. It will also make religious conflict to be worst if it fails to construct openness and inclusiveness between the actors. The other thing which has significant role of interreligious dialogue is media. Religious dialogue instead soughs to show certain person is right and the other is wrong, it is often happen in dialogues religious that was organized by the television. An attempt that should be expected to pressure of violence as a result of ignorance, unfortunately it makes the problem more complicated.  Interreligious dialogue is problematic chance that has strong influence for the most important way to solve religious conflict.

Religious dialogue usually will be debated about theology, including the dogma, doctrine, and other issue which had become common sense in certain areas. The contentious matters would be difficult to reconcile or even accept it as differences individual beliefs. The hard dialogue happens when TV One open a dialogue between MUI, NU, Muhammadiyyah and Ahmadiyya after Cikeusik event. As the audience, I think that dialogue is useless if within it only exhort Ahmadiyyah for admitting their differences as mistaken dogma. The religious leaders try to locate Ahmadiyyah as as splinter group of Islam. They push Ahmadiyyah to become new religion rather than to be the brach of Islam. Actually, this dialogue is the most important process to build the relationship, mutual understanding, and trust each other. However, the method of disciptive and based on experience sometime did not use yet for solving conflict religious. only a few religious leaders who have received a plurality of views and being open to differences. Academic religious studies should be the door of interreligious dialogue to make a bridge between religions. Perhaps, it will be a hope for solving religious conflict in Indonesia.  

1 komentar:

Insider and Outsider

19.38 Unknown 1 Comments

The purpose of research determines the epistemology of researchers in the way to locate their perspective as insider or outsider. Reducing bias of research subject will be difficult in order to gain the ‘objectivity’. In other hand, taking most inside perspective will affect the research focus in some extent. However, the more important consideration than problematic role of researcher which want to be insider and outsider is about something what called ‘the condition of possibility’ (in Foucult’s term), such as ‘why and for what’ the research. This condition will lead the question about “insider and outsider” in realizing the possebility how reasercher can answer research’s problem.
The relation between “insider and outsider” is contested based researcher’s methodology. Theology and religious studies are the arena of how the relations influence even more need each other, hopefully, improving the quality of them. Thus, the framework to look at the ‘subject research’ is always determined by researcher to get their goal. Even, the researcher will construct scholar’s identity or define ‘subject research’.        

Many researchers succed using various approach (insider or outsider) based on their opportunity or even their weakness to do it. Kim Knott told four characters of research in the way they locate their self in scholar extent. However, each scholar has aims and hypothesis before doing research. Fatimah Mernissi, as theologian used her capability to access the materials and tradition (her experience and observation) for criticizing ‘subject’ through insider opportunity. Nevertheless, she can not deny that her idea was influenced by Western Idea, critically as the insider. In other cases in the time of colonization, most of academic studies including ‘religion antropology’ has certain mission, not only for exemining the knowledge of certain area and its people, but also for ‘controlling’ people identity as colonized people. This knowledge of identity influence the relation of inside and outside perspective even after colonization.      

1 komentar:

Critics for Religious Studies

00.07 Unknown 1 Comments

As scholarship, academic religious studies has important role for reviewing religious discourse. This academic study is different from theological studies or comparative theology. Thus, both of them become the limit of religious studies even influence how religious studies responds. It means they are not only separated but also correlated each other. Everything that is happen in theology field will be examined by religious studies, including its phenomenology and its reaction toward the world as reality. This relation bring the process how religious studies constructed. So, if the object of religious studies is not religion or about religious discourse (Wijsen, discussing on CRCS Class, 2012), so it should be more humanities studies and cross cultural, so it needs multiple inter-disciple for analytical category in academic context.                 
Unfortunately the whole concept of religion were very Western. Interreligious discourse tends to more comparatively for what religion is and how it relates to others. Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1963) wrote how Western scholars in the firstly time categorizing complex tradition in the box of ‘religion’ based on how they identity their self. In fact, religions do not ‘exist’, the scholars create what is ‘religions’ and explain ‘religion’ based on their definition about their tradition . The problem is they used this ‘categorizing’ as reality-criticize. In other critics, Richard King (1999, pp.43) told the factors of (mis?)-representation of religion in religious studies in post-colonial, are literary bias, the rise of rationalism, secular humanism, and Eurocentrism. Those factors become the narrative of self-contextual for constructing specific identity.
Those problems also show how the reality can not be translated, but it must be accepted, that means it needs the role of dialogue. Therefore, according to Frans Wijsen, interreligious studies can not be compared because of the untranslatable translability of ‘religion’. There are some languages as social reality could not be translated in other language, so scholars should not force the untranslatable language in their language. In other word, the object of this sciences would be the subject for them self.

In the context of Indonesia, religious studies born for continuing the comparative theological studies as an attempt for religious harmony. In this case, CRCS in Wijsen’s opinion is still taste ‘western’. Therefore, He suggested making more Indonesianist Religious Studies, which have special characters for defining religious studies and its tools in observing religious discourse in Indonesia. 

1 komentar:

Langganan: Postingan (Atom)