ABSTRACT
Indonesian government constructs a discourse on family during modernizing Indonesia. A conceptual “father” used to legitimate control of the regime, as well as “state ibuism” (“state mothering”) to control especially women. A controlled family discourse is used around political sphere on national election, public administration, family planning, school, etc. State bureaucrats placed at national, provincial, regency, and village levels to control a nuclear family (Westernized type of family pushed for local people). Countering the dominant discourse, local family still integrates kinship based on women power. The actual and discourse of local kinship used for constructing local economy and local politics.
Keywords : kinship, nuclear family, women
INTRODUCTION
Concepts around family and village-community in ex Western colonial countries must be deconstructed. Critique should be directed towards conventional perspectives based on evolutionism –developmentalism especially. Besides, deconstruction must be pushed through critical compareison between colonialism and before that era on family and village-community condition
On evolutionism base, social theories always locate village as simpler community rather than modern society –urban society especially. Actually the proposition is too weak to be conducted in Indonesia. A 15th century Majapahit Kingdom, for example, was so differentiated on marketing, harbors activities and other economical actions (Hefner, 2000). The Kingdom had more complicated social structure than Europe at that era.
Deconstruction of family in East society also has similar implication surprisingly. Western theory on family evolution consists of teleological nuclear family around domestic activities. At the last step, feminist movement moves women out of domestic activities. The family evolution perspective, again, is not able to be implemented on Javanese family in Indonesia –especially before Western colonization era. Public economical and political activities (out of domestic activities) have been common activities for parents, sons and daughter, similarly for men and women.
Colonial discourse –or now is better understood as economical imperialism—on family and village-community has material consequences. Moving wet land economical activities from women to men fits with discriminations from agricultural extension to agricultural credit for men (Sajogyo, 2006). After that, recruitment on women as garment industry labor implicates on lower salary, as women are represented as second wage earner than men. Community domination (after managed by almost men) over family (then as area for women) is encapsulated towards family development and family planning. At this point, state dominates over village-community also.
Critical awareness on discourses of village-community and family looks to create an opportunity for emancipation of the lowest social position. An important question is how could be a relation between village-community and family at a long history then constructs a domination relation.
This article aims to understand discourses on emancipation form and methods of family and community. The article will also search discourse formations for newly respective and emancipateional relation on each of them, especially for the lowest family.
The globalization from below will be implemented through postcolonial theory. Community and family will be located at the theory. It needs a new conceptual arrangement to open discussions on family and postcolonial theory. The discussion below focuses on Javanese family and village. A problem occurs to identify Javanese ethnic. Within postcolonial theory, an ethnic is at a mode of movement, on being condition (namely polyglot), competing and compounding many discourses (namely hybridity). In this article, Javanese includes people who speak on Javanese language and emotionally tied with the language. Almost of them stays in Central and East Java Provinces, Indonesia, but they may also live around the world and maintaining imaginary solidity through speaking Javanese language each other.
POSTCOLONIAL THEORY, COMMUNITY, FAMILY
Postcolonial Theory
Postcolonial theory is developed from postmodern theories. The postmodern theories have been developed from 1968th riots in French (MacDonnell, 2005). Critiques from postmodernism focus not only structuralism and functionalism perspectives, but also to Marxism. In other world, deconstruction is directed towards modernity, especially logocentrism (Al-Fayyadl, 2005). A new theory is arranged by textual analyzes, discourse formation, and deconstruction of writing (Arivia, 2005).
As discourse theory –especially developed by postmodern theorists—postcolonial theorists understand that reality is constructed as an imaginary and a discourse of the people (Foucault, 2002; Said, 2001; Venn, 2006). Although some theorists conclude that the reality is only a discourse (Hindess, 1978; MacDonnell, 2005), this article is based on a perspective about existing relation between discursive practices, material and institution. Nevertheless, the material cannot be understood in naive-realism perspective as well as critical-realism, but as a consequence of discursive imaginary that has been developed before that. The discourse has not been such a logic or logical rhetoric, but as a systematized knowledge in self consciousness, everyday social interaction, till institution, organization, even material building.
For me, conceptual relation is developed especially between culture, power and locality aspects. The knowledge above has power or a primary power matter for people. Western enlightenment only promoted one aspect (logos or logical side) to reach knowledge (Al-Fayyadl, 2005; Derrida, 2005; Venn, 2006). A man with his knowledge is humanist (to be a human), so that he is valid to get a power to emancipate others (that are less-developed). On evolutionism perspective, this action of emancipating may mature others towards humanism.
All of this discussion forgot dialectics of enlightenment, when power is used to dominate over other people. Knowledge is developed to systematize Other, who is also less developed (Said, 2001; Venn, 2006). The discourse institutionalized within Western colonization, especially from 19th century. Texts of Other (the colonies people) became knowledge to arrange identity of less-development for people in colonies. The imaginary identity is empowered through colonial government, and supported by economical and military entities of the colonialists. The systematization remains on ex Westerns colonization nations-state, even the nations-state are formally independent.
After their independent, The West (Europe and USA) changed the colonial structure into imperialism, especially through economy and globalization. Beside agreements that reflect neo-liberal economy, the ex colony nations-states are still influenced by the West through development projects that funded by Western states and donors.
On the context, postcolonial theory aims to deconstruct Western discourse that remains on texts on East, for example the ex colonies (Said, 2001). A construction on East is deconstructed by critical study on Eastern concepts themselves. At the first phase of postcolonial theory development, the deconstruction is conducted by detecting a history of the concepts on Western history itself (namely genealogy) (Foucault, 2002). Discourse destruction may also be conducted through critique on writing text on Western categories and diagrams (deconstruction) (Al-Fayyadl, 2005).
At the second phase, postcolonial also is developed through genealogy and deconstruction of Eastern texts themselves. More than that, a space for subaltern voices is developed, so that they may express their own opinion (Venn, 2006). The method shows that social relation developed in ex colonies –especially at massive level of colonization—by Western state (Europe and USA) has signs on cultural, social, economical, legal, and technological hybridity between the West and the East.
Colonialism, capitalism, military, or colonial government have multiple forms. Until now, capitalism (especially at globalization form) and Western rationalism are not singular form, but are multiply forms (Hefner, 2000). The multiple forms are also an important representation of people in ex colonies. In Eastern societies themselves, it emerges elites and marginal groups. The plurality emerges a consequence on developing emancipation from the lowest people in Eastern (Venn, 2006).
As a discourse develops social relation, community and family may be understood as imaginary construction of the people within. The postcolonial theory on imaginary community has published extensively, at nation and state levels, until at lower spaces. A concept of imaginary community for the article may be taken from the concept above, by adapting the concept for local Javanese culture.
Nevertheless, discussion on family is still rare in postcolonial theory especially compared to feminism. The article will propose a new “face” of family in postcolonial theory. More than that, I will propose a dynamic relation between village-community and family
Locating Community at Postcolonial Theory
Logocentrism by Descartes (“Cogito ergo sum”) implicates on causality analysis. Compounding with teleological perspective, the causality analysis has been constructed step by step into human maturity (humanism) and social maturity (history) (Al-Fayyadl, 2005; Venn, 2006).
The systematized perspective implicates on discourse on community as part of an evolution into society. Community concept has similar level with gemeinschaft (by Tonnies) or mechanical solidarity (by Durkheim, 1933). Community consists of simple social structure, simple social differentiation, and simple division of labor. The representation is tied with village-community, and the community is always depended on urban society (as explained in rural-urban continuum theory from Redfield). This linearity becomes a matter to be deconstructed by postcolonial theory. Position of urban is constructed higher because cosmopolitanism is impressed to be developed there, especially by compiling experts, capitalism institutions, and military apparatus (Derrida, 2005). On the contrary, village is positioned as subaltern, which is lower, can not be existed by itself, so that its voice should be presented by urban society.
Besides, community has romantic social relation on harmony. In Marxism –and of course perspectives above—primitive community (e.g. primitive communism) has not any social contradiction, because there is not social stratification. Communist society also becomes romantically utopia about a harmonious classless society.
As mention above evolutionism discourse on community is not valid, as some communities (some societies may be better) in Indonesia are used to be more developed than societies in Europe (for example Majapahit Kingdom). Besides, discourse on community since colonial era consisting Western logocentrism.
Evolutionism consequence on community concept has been locating village-community at lower and being dominated by colonials. A good documentation on exploitation toward village-communities was at a novel Max Havelaar by Multatuli.
Today community is located in economical rationalism perspective, for example as part of social capital (Coleman, 1994). Embeddedness of social and economical actions within community network is understood as an accumulation mechanism of social capital. The social capital decreases economical transaction cost, so that development is impressed working more efficient.
The instrumentalizing of community network forgets capacity of self reflection of people within it. On another case, some people still resist from national state domination as well as colonial domination
Postcolonial theory, on the contrary, analyzes an opportunity for self reflection by the people. A tie –as well as a boundary—of a community is a result of people consciousness as exemplified by everyday social relation and by production of suited material. A relation with others out of the community constructs hibridity forms, understanding –self reflecting—new forms and new mechanisms according to self consciousness or to their own language (Anderson, 2002; Venn, 2006). Their consciousness becomes a judgment of the truth and the discourse there.
Locating Family at Postcolonial Theory
Postcolonial theory lays on conflict perspective in theories of sociology of family. I found that it is blurred on laying the postcolonial theory on conflict perspective. The perspective category is too wide to include all of critical angle towards family –better to identify the category as critical perspective. The category includes from structural conflict theory, micro and macro resources conflict (including feminism), to dialectical deconstructionism of postmodern theory (Klein and White, 1996). We can see there, that postmodern theories have same category with Marxist theory, even though Marxist theory will be criticized. In the wide category even the postcolonial theory has not been included, although the theory may be developed from dialectical deconstructionism.
By locating postcolonial theory into the critical perspective, theoretical roots may be taken from Said’s critique on orientalism, Bhaba’s hibridity concept, and Spivak’s study on subaltern (Venn, 2006). It is assumed that the West (Europe and USA) constructs family discourse in order to colonizer interest. In the discourse families of the colonized communities become the Other, and they exist only through Western language and Western knowledge. The Other must orient themselves to the West (Occidentalism), and is located as subaltern.
Concepts to be developed include discourse, subaltern, and hybridity. Family is better considered as a discourse. Marriage, for example, is a mechanism to fulfill sexual need. The need emerges before some rules of marriage and family development were constructed (Heryanto, 2000). The rules are materialized through praxis within a family; this is typical in discourse of family.
Discussion on family is conducted to deconstruct Western discourse, that locating families in the colonies as Others and is positioned at lower status on the context of linearity of modernity evolution or development. Deconstruction also focuses to a perspective which positions that Western scientists have more competency on (so that it is valid for them to power over) development programs or family development program in ex colonies (a tutelage concept). A concept of nuclear family, for example, has been considered as Western arrangement since industrial revolution at 18th-19th centuries. Up to 20th century, a nuclear family had been pejorative meaning. The nuclear family is considered as an unintended impact of industrial revolution. The revolution has broken wider kinship relationship (Scott and Tilly, 1975; Zinn, 2000). Before entering development era since World War II, however, the perception of the family has switched to be positive. The nuclear family now supports economic development (Parsons, 1955; Zimmerman, 1947).
Family dynamics are not only directed from outside, but also as a consequence of everyday actions of family members on meaning any source of changes. A hybridity process works by any efforts to bring older perspectives out of the family (a diasporic process), then constructing new discourse and praxis. The new ones may consist of older perspectives within and outside of the family, or constructing a real new perspective. Moreover, self awareness of family members is directed to emancipate each of them, especially for Othered families.
A relationship between a family and a community may also be considered as other hybridity process. Self identity constructed in a family may be different from community’s identity. To avoid community’s colonization over family, a deconstruction is focused on subalterization family when facing community.
JAVANESE FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
Subalternizing Village and Family
At least since Mataram Kingdom (about 16th century) –at the time before facing Dutch colonization—a village is developed through a village leader’s capacity on managing village’s members (Onghokham, 1986; Soemardjan, 1991). The King gives a position for the leader, but without any supporting financial and other resources. The village leader managing the members to produce any things and services by themselves. A relationship between the villager leader and the king is developed once a year, when the village leader was giving some products to the king. In a war of the kingdom, the village leader supported the king by mobilizing the members. Nevertheless, the village leader may mobilize the member for other kingdom if the king forgot him before. In other world, an emerging village always shows capacity of village leader himself in conducting the members.
On the contrary, villages became unautonomously and locating at the lowest governmental structure when they are compunded. It has been happened at reorganized colonization since the beginning of 20th century (Sajogyo, 2006). The idea of compunding villages has been used as control mechanism. Beside materially, for example widen territory of compunded villages, the compound also include managerial discourse. In the discourse, same categorical villages that compunded then decreased statistics (better understood as sensus) of villages. This mechanism made management and control over the villages more easily (Boyne, 2006; Venn, 2006). Upper categorization to control villages are sub district and district government (especially during autonomous era since 2000).
Control over village categorization –especially during Soeharto regime on decades of 1970-1990—is materialized by delivering development resources from national level to provincial, district, sub district, and end at village level (Nordholt, 1987). Materialization of the distribution empower village boundary, for example through distributing resources according to each village boundary.
Categorization as well as control and subalternization over villages materialized especially on development typical formal village leader (chosen by upper government level). Their task focuses on distributing the development resources. A control is represented on the body of the village or district leaders. The formally village leader became strengther than informal leader in the same village (Nordholt, 1987). During the process, since 1980 decade villages financial has been also becoming more dependent from district and national government –and on the contrary their autonomus on financial management has been decreasing. Surely the discourse on hierarchycal control chain over villages directed to control over the family.
Beside the hierarchical control, national and district governments also contrl families in the villages directly. It works through development caders (Sajogyo, 2006), for example caders of family planning, infrastructure development, group financing. At this moment, formally village leaders control over territory, adn development caders control over developemnt sectors (sectors of each department or each government’s programs.
Out of material control, subalternizing over families also emerged in family discourse (Shiraishi, 2001; Mulder 2001a, 2001b). A discourse on fatherness is reconstructed, and the father is considered as leader that knows a lot –even all of—things. The father, then, has a legitimation to govern other family members, even he govern out of norms. A father is not only part of family compnents, but also a discourse on absolut leader.
At the same time, a mother is reconstructed by the state as a follower and a servant of a father. The discourse located mother below father. A control over the discourse materialized on Dharma Wanita organization (which may be translated as mother serving father), and PKK/Pendidikan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (translated as mother serving all of family mambers) (Sajogyo, 2006). The scoupe of the meanings around a family made it different from dichotomy of men and women in feminist movement.
Other discourse focuses on children. A linearity perspective emerged on discourse that children is part of childish family member (Mulder, 2001a, 2001b). In childish discourse, children may play all of the days. Result of them are toys, or toy’s matter. Their result cannot produce intensive and deep meaning of life. Children have not yet become Javanese people, or have not yet a fully human. This point of view the children cannot exist by themselves, but their existence must be declared by father and mother.
Discourses father the leader, mother the servant, and children the player works during colonization of community over family. Community dynamics need serious action—meant maturity area—that may not entered and developed by children, except it declared by father. If a child represented their family in a community meeting –as his/her father cannot come to the meeting—legitimation of his/her family were decreased compared to other families that represented by fathers. Village-community dynamics, then, are dynamics around family leaders. Through the selection (of entering meeting) for family leaders only, the state may controls dynamics of the villages.
Family Emancipation
Historically, Javanese family is aoutonomous when facing village-community (Hefner, 2005; Onghokham, 1986; Soemardjan, 1991). If the village leader forgets increasing welfare of families on the area, then the families could move their obey to other village leader. They might move to other village that the leader were accepts them. Territorial tie is not tightly for Javanese family. A divorce of the family from the village-community even may be a new step to develop a new community; based on solidarity of othered families.
Community tie is more tightly through blood, ethnical or religious relationship (Hefner, 2005). If there were people in conflict, they may be differentiated by blood. It shows that kinship relationship is more tightly than territorial relationship. A conflict between ethnics emerges based on ethnical ties. Peasant movement is managed by religious leader–who can manage people based on religious tie. Besides, the conflict that covers families in the village depends on the leaders performance on managing or forgetting the families—it has been emerging since Mataram Kingdom era. In other words, imaginary community consisted of families is constructed through imaginary of ties of blood, ethnics, religion, or autoritative leader.
Facing many types of communities, family members also have their own autonomy. This perspective is different from other argument focuses hierarchy within families (Mulder, 1984),
yang sebetulnya telah mengalami perubahan ke arah kesetaraan pada masa kini. Diskursus tentang Bapak yang memerintah dapat segera hancur manakala Bapak menyalahi aturan dan kepantasan umum. Bapak memang memiliki kekuasaan, namun sekaligus ditawan oleh diskursus publik ini. Gerakan sosial hingga revolusi-revolusi yang terjadi di Indonesia merupakan perlawanan Anak kepada Bapak. Identitas Bapak seringkali digoyang oleh identitas Anak.
Salah satu bahan penggoyang penting ialah pengalaman untuk menempati posisi. Orang yang berpengalaman dipandang mampu menguasai sejarah pada masanya dan berpengetahuan, sehingga ia memiliki legitimasi untuk duduk sejajar dengan posisi yang lebih tinggi. Pada satu sisi pengalaman menjadi bahan tutelage (pakar) untuk mendominasi diskursus pihak lain. Akan tetapi, di pihak lain, pengalaman dapat menjadi bahan legitimasi yang paling mungkin diperoleh lapisan bawah. Hal ini terutama berlangsung dalam keluarga, di mana perkawinan dipandang sebagai pengalaman yang hampir pasti dialami setiap orang. Seorang istri yang berpengalaman menikah (seorang janda) memiliki kedudukan yang setara –atau minimal mendekati kesetaraan—dengan suaminya.
Ibu sendiri sebagai posisi sosial menjadi pengalaman, bahan pengetahuan dan memiliki potensi legitimasi. Sebagai bahan emansipasi, diskursus Ibu dapat digunakan untuk membantu anggota masyarakat lain, sekaligus untuk menenteramkan masyarakat secara keseluruhan. Gerakan sosial bernama Suara Ibu Peduli –bukannya feminisme—menggunakan pengalaman menjadi Ibu memiliki legitimasi diskursif untuk mengingatkan pihak lain yang berkonflik pada awal Reformasi setelah tahun 1999, serta membantu dan memelihara kelompok-kelompok yang tertinggal selama reformasi. Ibu memiliki selendang (dimaterialisasikan dalam Suara Ibu Peduli) yang dapat memberikan kehangatan (Mulder, 1984; Shiraishi, 2001), yaitu sejenis rasa nyaman yang dapat dinikmati seseorang segera dalam selendang ibunya. Bersama dengan rasa kehilangan (dimaterialisasi dalam krisis moneter), konsep ini menjadi landasan penyusunan keluarga.
DISKUSI
Hingga saat ini, kemandirian komunitas desa yang terkait dengan pembentukan desa baru, sebaliknya ketergantungan desa terkait penggabungan desa tetap muncul. Dengan kata lain, kolonialisme dan imperialisme berlangsung menurut pengkategorian baru terhadap dengan, yang secara material berujud penyusunan ulang batas-batas desa. Pengkategorian ini disusul dengan manajerialisasi atau pemerintahan terhadap komunitas desa.
Developmentalisme memberikan ide tentang keluarga ideal dalam masyarakat modern, yang dipandang sejajar dengan peningkatan kesejahteraan keluarga. Idealisasi tersebut tentang keluarga batih (Parsons, 1955; Zimmerman, 1947), yang bermaksud dinamika anggota keluarga tertentu: bapak, ibu, anak. Mitos statistika kesejahteraan digunakan dalam bentuk keluarga inti (yang beranggotakan sedikit orang) yang mudah berpindah dan fleksibel terhadap perkembangan kapitalisme lokal. Keluarga inti memudahkan produksi untuk meningkatkan pemasukan pendapatan. Jumlah anak dibatasi sekedar dua orang, karena anak merupakan pengeluaran yang perlu dikurangi. Tidak disukai keluarga beranak tunggal, karena si anak menjadi manja dan merongrong orang tua. Sebaliknya dibangun diskursus tentang anak sulung (posisi ini muncul bersamaan dengan adanya posisi adik) yang segera menjadi dewasa melalui gemblengan kasih sayang dan kemudian kehilangan kasih orang tuanya (Shiraishi, 2001). Kakak membantu orang tua (Bapak dan Ibu) dan menjaga adik. Keluarga batih juga bukan merupakan bagian dari keluarga poligami yang bermakna sebagai korespondensi satu-satu di antara anggota keluarga tersebut. Korespondensi yang memungkinkan pendugaan tindakan sampai taraf tertentu ini menjadi salah satu mekanisme pengontrolan.
Untuk mencapai idealisasi tersebut subalternisasi terhadap keluarga muncul dalam pembangunan. Suatu kontrol terhadap keluarga mengandung makna kontrol terhadap anggota-anggota keluarga. Dengan kata lain, kontrol tidak sekedar terhadap perempuan –sebagaimana seringkali dikemukakan feminisme—melainkan lebih kepada bapak, ibu dan anak.
Diskursus politik dan pembangunan melalaikan anggota kerabat lain, misalnya kakek, nenek, paman, bibi, cucu. Para anggota kerabat lain ini ditiadakan dan tidak bisa berbicara atas nama keluarga atau orientasi kekeluargaan. Subalternisasi ini berpotensi menjadi permasalahan developmentalisme, karena –telah disampaikan di atas—salah satu ikatan komunitas imajiner yang penting justru muncul dari ikatan kekerabatan.
Namun demikian, keluarga Jawa memiliki kemandirian saat berhubungan dengan komunitas desa. Tekanan pandangan yang berlebihan terhadap kemandirian keluarga Jawa saat berhadapan dengan komunitas –dibandingkan dengan hubungan erat keluarga batih di Cina dengan komunitas Guanxi terutama untuk mengelola korporasi—sebagai dikemukakan oleh Hefner (2000) sulit untuk diterima. Lebih tepat menyatakan bahwa hubungan antar keluarga-keluarga Jawa untuk membentuk komunitas tidak terutama berkaitan dengan tingkat dekat atau teritorial seperti suatu desa, melainkan kepada orientasi kekerabatan (hubungan darah), etnis, religi, dan pemimpin otoritatif.
Dengan memperhatikan hal ini, disertai kesadaran akan konflik dan resistensi yang dilakukan oleh keluarga-keluarga Jawa –yang terutama terdiri atas keluarga batih—tampaknya sulit untuk menerima pandangan bahwa pemaknaan tentang keluarga (terutama keluarga Jawa, sebegaimana terlihat pada kasus-kasus yang dikemukakan) masih kosong, sehingga dengan mudah diskursus didominasi oleh rejim Soeharto (Shiraishi, 2001). Konflik dan resistensi di atas, serta jaringan kerjasama pada keluarga Jawa justru menunjukkan konstruksi identitas yang dikembangkan secara mandiri.
Melalui kemandirian ini keluarga Jawa selalu melakukan hibriditas sehari-hari, dalam rangka memaknai kembali dan terus menerus keadaan dalam dan luar keluarga. Pengalaman yang serupa dengan hibriditas pernah muncul dalam sinkretisme Jawa (Mulder, 2001a, 2001b). Sinkretisme kebudayaan ini mencakup aspek pengetahuan hingga praksis. Konsep hibriditas dalam dinamika keluarga memungkinkan solidaritas lintas pelapisan sosial. Gerakan emansipasi yang didasari pengalaman menduduki posisi-posisi dalam keluarga (contohnya sebagai Ibu dalam Suara Ibu Peduli) mungkin memang bersifat sementara atau insidental. Saya kira hal itu tertuju pada contoh gerakan spontan terhadap krisis yang datang mendadak. Oleh sebab itu hibriditas masih membutuhkan materialisasi diskursus dalam praksis sehari-hari. Bagi saya, suatu pandangan yang lebih dekat dengan habitus ini lebih memungkinkan untuk mengembangkan hibriditas, daripada saran pengorganisasi secara lebih formal (Budianta, 2004). Tanpa pengemabangan habitus, formalisasi berpotensi menjadi pemerintahanisme (gevernmentality) yang justru menghasilkan kontrol pengurus kepada anggota.
Lebih jauh lagi, analisis Shiraishi (2001) benar dalam menunjukkan konstruksi subaltern keluarga oleh negara. Namun demikian, pada saat yang bersamaan dapat pula diterima pandangan bahwa keluarga Jawa itu sendiri melakukan hibriditas untuk mengolah makna diskursus oleh negara tersebut. Diskursus dan praksis emansipasi oleh keluarga Jawa menunjukkan tantangan terhadap tutelage atau dominasi pemikiran oleh negara. Dapat dikatakan bahwa beragam makna tentang keluarga ini eksis bersama-sama –meskipun tidak selalu saling dukung—sehingga membentuk suatu koartikulasi diskursus dan praksis.
KESIMPULAN
Dinamika hubungan keluarga Jawa dan komunitas desa tidak bisa dinyatakan sebagai suatu hubungan langsung. Ikatan teritorial sedesa baru menguat manakala sejalan dengan ikatan kekerabatan, etnis, religi, atau pemimpin yang otoritatif.
Adalah memungkinkan untuk membangun komunitas berbasis hubungan antar keluarga-keluarga. Gagasan atau diskursus tentang keluarga mendasari pengembangan ikatan antar warga (Shiraishi, 2001), yang membedakan orang yang dikenal akrab (sebagai materialisasi diskursus keluarga) dengan yang tidak dikenal (sebagai Pihak Lain). Komunitas dapat dibangun melalui hibriditas keluarga-keluarga di dalamnya (Anderson, 2002).
Eksistensi bersama-sama antara “subalternisasi” oleh negara terhadap desa dan keluarga Jawa, sebaliknya hibridisasi yang dikembangkan keluarga Jawa, menunjukkan keadaan koartikulasi diskursus dan praksis komunitas desa dan keluarga Jawa. Agak berbeda dengan pandangan umum poskolonialisme, di mana koartikulasi berimpit dengan hibriditas yang merupakan percampuran diskursus, dalam tulisan ini ditunjukkan bahwa koartikulasi lebih mendekati aspek toleransi. Diskursus dan praksis pihak-pihak yang berbeda tersebut bisa saling bertentangan (bahkan negara menafikan desa dan keluarga sebagai Pihak Lain), namun tetap hidup bersama.
Koartikulasi demikian dapat diibaratkan munculnya beragam paradigma yang tumbuh bersama. Realitas bergerak di antara paradigma-paradigma tersebut, dan menghasilkan makna yang berbeda ketika memasuki paradigma yang berbeda. Masih diperlukan penelitian yang lebih mendalam pada titik kritis perpindahan makna suatu diskursus dan praksis ketika memasuki paradigma yang berbeda.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Al-Fayyadl, M. 2005. Derrida. Yogyakarta: LKIS.
Anderson, BR’OG. 2002. Imagined Communities: Komunitas-komunitas Terbayang. Translated from Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Second Ed. Yogyakarta: Insist.
Arivia, G. 2005. Kata Pengantar, In: D. Macdonell. Teori-teori Diskursus: Kematian Strukturalisme & Kelahiran Posstrukturalisme dari Althusser hingga Foucault. Translated from. Bandung: Teraju.
Boyne, R. 2006. Classification. In: Theory, Culture and Society Th. 23 No. 2-3.
Budianta, M. 2004. Tragedi yang Menuai Berkah: Munculnya Aktivisme Perempuan dalam Masa Reformasi. In: A. Heryanto, SK Mandal, eds. Menggugat Otoriterisme di Asia Tenggara: Perbandingan dan Pertautan antara Indonesia dan Malaysia. Translated from Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia.
Coleman, J. 1994. A Rational Choice Perspective on Economic Sociology. In NJ Smelser, R. Swedberg, eds. The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Pr.
Derrida, J. 2005. Kosmopolitanisme & Forgiveness. Translated from Cospolitanism and Forgiveness. Yogyakarta: Alinea.
Durkheim, E. 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
Macdonell, D. 2005. Teori-teori Diskursus: Kematian Strukturalisme & Kelahiran Posstrukturalisme dari Althusser hingga Foucault. Translated from. Bandung: Teraju.
Foucault, M. 2002. Mengugat Sejarah Ide. Translated from Yogyakarta: Ircisod.
Hefner, RW. 2000. Islam Pasar Keadilan: Artikulasi Lokal, Kapitalisme, Demokrasi. Translated from Yogyakarta: LKIS.
Heryanto, A. 2000. Perlawanan dalam Kepatuhan: Esai-esai Budaya. Bandung: Mizan.
Hindess, B. 1978. Humanism and Teleology in Sociological Theory. In: B. Hindess, ed. Sociological Theories of the Economy. London: Macmillan.
Klein, DM, JM White. 1996. Family Theories: An Introduction. London: Sage.
Mulder, N. 2001a. Mistisisme Jawa: Ideologi di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: LKIS.
Mulder, N. 2001b. Ruang Batin Masyarakat Indonesia. Yogyakarta: LKIS.
Mulder, N. 1984. Kepribadian Jawa dan Pembangunan Nasional. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada Univ. Pr.
Nordholt, NS. 1987. Ojo Dumeh: Kepemimpinan Lokal dalam Pembangunan. Jakarta: Sinar Harapan.
Onghokham. 1986. Korupsi dan Pengawasan dalam Perspektif Sejarah. In: Prisma Th. 15 No. 3.
Parsons, T. 1955. The Isolated Conjugal Family. In: M. Anderson. Sociology of the Family, Second Ed. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Said, EW. 2001. Orientalisme. Translated from Orientalism. Bandung: Pustaka.
Sajogyo. 2006. Ekososiologi: Deideologisasi Teori, Restrukturisasi Aksi (Petani dan Perdesaan sebagai Kasus Uji). Yogyakarta: Cindelaras.
Scott, JW, LA Tilly. 1975. Women’s Worlk and the Family in Nineteenth-Century. In: M. Anderson. Sociology of the Family, Second Ed. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Shiraishi, SS. 2001. Pahlawan-pahlawan Belia: Keluarga Indonesia dalam Politik. Translated from Young Heroes: Indonesian Family in Politics. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia.
Soemardjan, S. 1991. Perubahan Sosial di Yogyakarta. Translated from Social Change in Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada Univ. Pr.
Venn, C. 2006. The Postcolonial Challenge: Towards Alternative Worlds. London: Sage.
Zimmerman, CC. 1947. The Atomistic Family. In: M. Anderson. Sociology of the Family, Second Ed. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Zinn, MB. 2000. Feminism and Family Studies for a New Century. In: ANNALS, AAPSS No. 571.
