Jumat, 30 Juli 2010

Jeff Barrus, Common Cultural Differences in Communication between Indonesians and Americans

Common Cultural Differences in Communication between Indonesians and Americans

Jeff Barrus[1]

In general, the American style of speaking and gesturing may seem abrupt and impolite to many Indonesians. Americans, for the most part, live in a fast, high-pressure world and the pace of their interactions with each other mirrors this. Also, in comparison with Indonesians, Americans tend to be less formal in their spoken communication and more exaggerated in their gestures while being more protective of their personal space.

Greetings provide a good example of this. For instance, Americans usually greet each other with words like "hello," "hi," or even "hey" followed by questions like "How are you?" or "What's going on?" While the greeting "good morning" is also common in America, similar greetings-many of which are learned by non-native speakers-such as "good afternoon" or "good evening" are uncommon outside of very formal circumstances. Friends and family members rarely use these expressions in speaking with one another. Conversations between strangers usually begin with one person saying, "Hello, my name is_____," and offering his hand to be shaken. Americans rarely say things like, "May I introduce myself?" as this is seen as too formal.

Americans prefer to meet face to face and at a relatively close distance. This is one reason many Americans, and Westerners in general, do not respond to shouted greetings of "Hello, mister" while they are in Indonesia. Americans are not able to understand why someone on the street would watch them walk up and wait until they pass before yelling, "Hello, mister" at their back. Perhaps the Indonesian simply felt shy to speak directly to the American, but the American's interpretation of this behavior is that the Indonesian probably sees him as the same as all Americans, or even all white people, and therefore doesn't want to take the time and effort of making personal contact. If the same Indonesian were to smile, look the American in the face, and say, "Hello," most Americans would happily return the greeting.

One major difference between introductions in Indonesian culture and introductions in American culture is that in America a person meets someone by giving them information about himself, usually to establish a connection of some sort. This can be a place both people know, work they have in common, or similar interests. For example, someone might say, "Hello. My name is Bill Clinton. I work at the White House," or "Hi. I'm Monica Lewinski. I'm interested in politics and I've always wanted to meet you." The reason Americans give information about themselves before asking questions about the other person is that they want to show their good intentions by letting the other person know more about themselves than they know about him. Knowing something about someone is considered an advantage in American communication. For one person to give this advantage to another builds trust. In Indonesia, however, people usually prefer to ask questions of another person before giving information about themselves. This is done to honor the other person by showing an interest in his life over the introducer's own. Unfortunately, many Americans would not understand this difference. They would be suspicious of someone who wanted to know where they lived or what religion they were before telling them anything about himself

As many English speakers in Indonesia already know, Westerners and Americans in particular do not ask the same sort of introductory questions of each other as Indonesians do. Questions such as, "Are you married?" "How many children do you have?" and especially, "Where do you live?" are off-putting to Americans when they are meeting someone for the first time. This is because Americans regard these matters as personal and private. Sometimes phrasing can make a big difference in whether a question is intrusive or not. For example, asking someone "Are you from here?" is less invasive than asking, "What street do you live on?"

Even though Americans meeting for the first time avoid these private matters, their conversations may still be extremely direct. Requests, for example, are not always proceeded by "small talk" as they often are in Indonesia. Also, American culture prizes speaking exactly what you are thinking in blunt, simple language-even if the thoughts are only reactions or might offend another person. People rarely talk "around" a subject by using euphemisms and allusion. This is different in Indonesia, where people are expected to be able to intuit the message of a conversation without having to resort to using commands, making hurtful criticisms, or conveying unpleasant news in its barest form.

During a conversation, Americans would usually stand slightly farther apart than Indonesians would. One man speaking to another man or one woman speaking to another woman would probably touch less during the conversation than Indonesians would. But a man and woman, provided they are already friends, would touch much more frequently. As for body language, pointing with the index finger in America is a neutral gesture, made positive or negative by the speaker's words, facial expression and other actions. The same is true of clapping hands, placing your hands on your hips, calling someone over by waving towards yourself, and many other gestures. Some of these gestures are considered impolite in Indonesian culture. Americans may make these gestures in a fast, loose manner but Indonesians should not always mistake this for aggressiveness.

In American culture, showing interest in what another person is saying is usually done by verbal feedback. Comments like, "I see," "Really?" and, "That's interesting," or even sounds like "uh, ha" and "um" let a speaker know that you are following what they are saying. There is no way of studying when to give such responses. The only way to learn is by picking up the rhythms of American conversation within the culture. In general however, it is best to look someone in the face while you are listening to them. Interrupting someone else is considered rude but is nonetheless an extremely common practice in America.

Americans usually exit a conversation with less politeness and formality than an Indonesian would. "Excuse me," is more common as a way of introducing yourself to a stranger than of saying you would like to leave. Most Americans would say something more direct, such as "I need to go now" or "I've got to leave to pick up my wife at noon." Shaking hands is a common way of saying good-bye between strangers or business associates, but it is not used often between friends.

[1] Jeff Barrus is an Hawaian American, teaching at STIBA Malang and Guest Writer for Hermeneutics.

Jeff Barrus, Strategies for English Language Acquisition for Indonesian Learners



Jeff Barrus[1]

My experiences as both a student of Bahasa Indonesia and a teacher of English to Indonesian student have convinced me that language and culture are inseparable. The difficulties of pronunciation or grammar are never so great as the difficulties of using word and phrase within their proper cultural context. For Indonesian students, this means that the successful study of English is contingent upon understanding Western culture. This paper will attempt to illustrate some of the difficulties I've observed Indonesian learners face in using "culturally correct" English, as well as some challenges they face from their own culture in studying the language. Finally, I offer some strategies for overcoming those difficulties.

Regrettably, most American is generally ignorant on the subject of Indonesia and its language and culture. But while Indonesians have much greater exposure to American culture, most have had little or no personal contact with Americans. Furthermore, many of the American influences they do receive come from Hollywood movies, MTV and pop music, and product marketing (e.g., Marlboro or Nike). This often creates a distorted picture of American life and reinforces many stereotypes about American culture, which are harmful to student learning English. For example, when I ask students to cite differences between Indonesian and American never use basa-basi (lip service), make no distinctions between formal and informal speech, or are always on-time. A student even once told me, " In American we know criminality and free sex are cool, but in Indonesia we have to think before we do something bad."

I do believe there is a higher degree of politeness in Indonesian culture than in American culture. But this does not mean politeness is nonexistent in American. I constantly remind student that American are usually less direct and more polite than they imagine them to be. In fact, because Americans tend to be less akrab (socially connected) with each other than Indonesians, they use words like "please" and "excuse me" in more situations than Indonesians would. These are some of the first words an English student learns and yet many student fail to use them properly. Many native Indonesian speakers who are courteous and proper in Bahasa Indonesia can sound suddenly rude when they switch to English. Two examples: If an Indonesian student invites me to accompany him by saying, "Follow me", what should have been polite request is turned into command, Or if someone haven't met approaches me by asking, "what are you looking for?" perhaps his intention is to offer directions - an offer that would be better phrased as "excuse me, could I help you find something?" Unfortunately, his language is as rude as if an American walked up to an unfamiliar Brawijaya professor and barked in Javanese, "Golek apa?" The best way to correct these small problems of usage is to practice with a native speaker. But I think it is also a good rule of thumb that one should try to be twice as polite outside their culture as they are within it.

As for understanding larger cultural issues, in my opinion the best approach any student can take is to read in English. Too many students believe if they concentrate on speaking only they will master the language more quickly. In fact, this is the way to illiteracy in a second language. It is impossible to separate the written word from English-language culture, which has a centuries-old tradition of passing on science, history, and drama by writing from one person to another. This is very different from Hawaiian culture, for instance, where information has been transmitted from one generation to another through songs, chant, and dances. Though Indonesia, and particularly Java, has a literary tradition, it is not a pervasive as the oral culture which has dominated society up until the present day.

Research has shown that the primary way English students enlarge their vocabulary is through pleasure reading. Therefore, in order for Indonesian student to be successful English learners they must read consistently. I suggest beginning with short article in a well-written daily newspaper like The Jakarta Post. By following the same news over several days, students are repeatedly exposed to the same vocabulary. They also gain a better understanding of English language cultures. Once student feel comfortable with the newspaper, they should try tackling Short book on the subjects of interest to them. Finally, they should graduated to literature, which in, my opinion, expresses the breadth, flexibility, power, and subtlety of English better than other medium.

Writing is also an important discipline in the study of English. A recently published study showed that teaching writing-in Bahasa Indonesian as well as English- was one of the weakest areas of the Indonesian secondary school system. This is unfortunate, Since writing is the slowest, least pressured, and most thoughtful means of expression. It allows student to test their reading and speaking comprehension by reassembling information in their own words. Also, when student write and than receive criticism of that writing, they can begin to eliminate small errors in, for example, the use of preposition or verb conjugation that plague their spoken English. In English, writing well is therefore an essential part of learning to speak well.

Taking note is also essential. Before I lecture, I advise student to write down words and expressions I use that they don't understand. Later they should look these words up in the dictionary. The next time they come to class they can ask me questions about using the words, in the process beginning to incorporate them into their own vocabulary.

Besides politeness and the adjustment to a more literary culture, Indonesian students face some internal cultural challenges in the learning English as well. One is the fear of making mistakes, which stop many students from attempting to speak altogether. Another is the feeling of sungkan, which inhibits student from speaking when someone of higher or greater competence is present to speak from them. Still another is the feeling of malu ("embarrassment" not "shyness" in this case) at being singled out from the group. For this reason, many Indonesian students are as afraid of praise as they are of criticism. Successful student must overcome these feelings in order to force themselves to speak.

In conclusion, I feel obliged to add that these strategies will amount to nothing if learners are not self-motivated. This is particularly true in Indonesia, where few people use English in their daily lives and native speakers are scarce. Student must learn from practice with each other. They must also bring English into their daily lives. To do this, I suggest subscribing to English-language newspaper and magazines, watching English movies and television shows (try to ignore the subtitle in Bahasa Indonesia), and listening to English radio programs. I myself owe much of my limited success in Bahasa Indonesia to my regular reading of Bola and the Jawa Pos, and my faithful viewing of "Jin dan Jun," Jangan Rebut suamiku" and "Misteri Gunung Merapi".

I admit that English is a difficult language to learn, with confusing rules of grammar and tricky pronunciations. Nonetheless, Indonesian student should not become discouraged. By practicing the above strategies and working hard, their goal of English mastery can be realized.

[1] Jeff Barrus is an Hawaian American, teaching at STIBA Malang and Guest Writer for Hermeneutics.

Sakban Rosidi, All the World's not Simply a Stage


The Poverty of Dramaturgical Approach ini Sociological Inquiry

Sakban Rosidi[1]

Historians of modern thought categorize the 17th century as the age of reasons. Stuart Hampshire (1957) gave an important note that in the ages of reason, philosophers began to explain natural processes in mathematical terms. They also developed vital concepts of knowledge and certainty, appearance and reality, freedom and necessity, mind and matter, deduction and experiment.

This century was the great formative era of modern thought, marked by the decline of medieval conceptions of knowledge, the rise of the physical sciences and the gradual transition from Latin to French and English as instruments of philosophical thought. There were such great 17th century philosophers as Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Rene Descartes (1569-1650), and Galileo Galilei (1564-1542). The more interesting is the fact that there was also a giant of English and world literature, William Shakespeare (1564-1616).

Though Shakespeare was not a philosopher or scientist, through his drama and poetry, it seems clear that he gave a significant influence to the philosopher's worldview of that time. "De omnibus dubitandum", Descartes asserted that thinking is but to doubt everything. On the principles of human knowledge, he argued, first, that in order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life to doubt, as far as possible, of all things. Second, that we ought also to consider as false all that is doubtful (Descartes, 1975: 165).

At the same age, Shakespeare wrote and performed his "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark", where Hamlet persuaded Ophelia with his letter.

To the celestial and my soul's idol,

The most beautified Ophelia,

In her excellent white bosom, these.

Doubt thou the stars are fire

Doubt that the sun doth move

Doubt truth to be a liar

But never doubt I love

O dear Ophelia,

I am ill at these numbers

I have not art to reckon my groans

But that I love thee best,

O most best, believe it, Adieu.

Thine evermore, most dear lady,

Whilst this machine to him.

(Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act II, Scene II).

Shakespeare's Hamlet, therefore, reminds us to the Cartesian skepticism. Moreover, Shakespeare was also affected by the ideas of philosophers of his time. Shakespeare's influences across time until the emerging of Marx (1818-1903), who wrote his manuscript on philosophy of money as his interpretation to a part of Shakespeare's "Timon of Athens".

Shakespeare emphasizes particularly two properties of money: (1) it is the visible deity, the transformation of all human and natural qualities into their opposites, the universal confusion and inversion of things; it brings incompatibles intro fraternity, (2) it is the universal whore, the universal pander between men and nations (Marx, 1963: 192).

This article, however, concerns with only the influences of Shakespeare's ideas, especially to the conception of human's social role. Although in epistemological perspective, this topic will implicate the controversy between narrative realism versus narrative constructionism (Fay, 1998), the focus will be paid on theoretical perspective, the debate between structural-determinism against total-subjectivism (Merton, 1976).

The idea of social role in sociological inquiry has repeatedly been described in theatrical terms. "All the world's stage", said Jacques. The world is stage analogy valid? Does our society make us what we are?

A. All the World's Stage

Extracted from five acts, the most inspiring message of "As You Like It" can be found in Act II, Scene 7. Here, Shakespeare puts into Jaques's mouth a speech that eminently anticipates the nature and potential of the category of social role, and thus illuminates many feature of the sociological concept of role.

All the world's stage

And all the men and women merely players.

They have their exits and their entrances.

And one man in his time plays many parts.

His acts being seven ages.

At first the infant,

mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.

And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel,

and shining morning face, creeping like snail,

unwillingly to school.

And then the lover,

sighing like furnace, with a woful ballad,

made to his mistress' eyebrow.

Then a soldier,

Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,

jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel

seeking the bubble reputation

even in the cannon's mouth.

And then the justice,

in fair round belly with good capon lin'd

with eyes severe, and beard of formal cut

full of wise saws and modern instances.

And so he plays his part.

The sixth age shifts into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,

with spectacles on nose and pouch on side,

his youthful hose well say'd a world too wide,

for his shrunk shrank, and his big manly voice

turning again toward childish treble, pipes

and whistles in his sound.

Last scene of all,

that ends his strange eventful history,

is second childishness a mere oblivion

sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

(Shakespeare, "As You Like It", Act II, Scene 7).

Shakespeare's main concern here is with age roles, which are only one class of social roles, but the speech at least hints at occupational and other roles (Dahrendorf, 1978). The world is a stage, which players enters and leaves. However, each player makes more than one appearance, and every one in a different mask. The same player enters the stage as a child and leaves it to return as a young man, a grown man, and an old man. Only when he dies does he have his last exit; but by then new and different players are on the stage playing "his" parts.

Today, Shakespeare's metaphor has become the central principle of the science of society. From the sociological point of view, the idea that relates the individual meaningfully to society is the idea of the individual as a bearer of socially predetermined attributes and modes of behavior. Galang Siahaan, for example, as a schoolboy, with a satchel and a shinning morning face, creeps unwillingly to school. As a lover, he sighs and sings a ballad to his beloved. As a soldier, he wears a beard, curses, is quarrelsome and jealous of his honor. As a judge, he dresses carefully and is full of wise saws.

Schoolboy, lover, soldier, judge, and oldman, are in a strange way both this particular individual, Galang Siahaan, and something that can be separated from him and spoken of without reference to him. Although Shakespeare's judge may no longer be appropriate for the stage of our time, we too can say what a judge is like, whether his name is Galang Siahaan or Gagar Siregar. In our time as in Shakespeare's, it is the vexatious fact of society that wrests the individual out of his individuality and defines his being by the alien categories of the world outside himself.

The fact of society is vexatious because we cannot escape from it. There may be lovers who neither sigh nor make a woeful ballad to their mistress eyebrows, but such lovers do not play their role. In the language of modern sociology, they are deviants. For every position a person can occupy, society has defined certain personal qualities and modes of behavior as acceptable.

The incumbent of such a position must decide whether or not to behave as society says he must. If he yields to society's demands, he abandons his virgin individuality but gains society's approval. If he resists society's demands, he may preserve an abstract and bootless independence, but only at the expense of incurring society's wrath and painful sanctions.

B. The Validity of the Stage Analogy

In Erving Goffman's (1969) dramaturgical approach, social life is depicted as theater. People are seen as actors stage-managing their conduct to control the attitudes and responses of others toward them. Impression management is used to create a favorable evaluation of ourselves in the minds of others. In other words, dramaturgical approach is a sociological perspective that views the performances staged in a theater as an analytical analogy and tool for depicting social life (Zanden, 1990: 90).

Think about impression management as a beginning college student. Most students come to college are concerned about their acceptance by the strangers they are to meet. Consequently, decisions are made, consciously or not, about how students want others to view them. Choices in clothing are made. Some students wear blue jeans and T-shirts, while others choose a preppie look.

Performances, continues Goffman (1969) with his analogy, may have a front and back stage. College students may behave one way with dates and let down when alone with members of the same sex. Students may behave as expected when with their parents or teachers. They only tell their closed friends what they really think later. Behavior changes as it is managed in various setting.

Goffman's (1969) life's work was devoted to the distinction between culturally prescribed roles and the fulfillment of those roles. Role behavior is the actual conduct involved in activating a role. Although some role behavior can occur in isolation, as when a student study alone for an examination, most of it involves social interaction. Social interaction exists when two or more persons mutually influence each other's behavior.

Not all social interaction is role behavior. When patients are told to disrobe for a medical examination, they are not supposed to take this as a cue from the doctor for sexual activity, nor should doctors expect his instruction to evoke sexual cues from their patients. If sexual episodes occur, they are violations of expected role behavior.

If statuses are analogous to the parts of a play and roles the script of a play, then social interaction is similar to the give-and-take of cues in a performance, and role behavior is the actual performance. Again, in language of modern sociology, they are deviants.

Although the stage analogy is a valid one, there is a danger in taking analogies at face value. The two situations being compared are seldom exactly the same. The analogy between the stage and societal life is no exception. This stage analogy can be useful, but insight can also be gained by looking at the differences between societal life and the theater (Sephard, 1987).

First, delivery of the lines in real life is not the conscious process that we see in performers on the stage. Most role behavior occurs without much forethought. We usually act in ways that seem to be natural and correct. In fact, these natural and correct ways have been unconsciously adopted through observation, imitation, and the efforts of others to pass them along.

Second, there is considerably more of a discrepancy between roles and role behavior in societal life than between a stage script and its performance. Performers may substitute lines for momentarily forgotten ones, deliberately change lines to suit themselves, and introduce a little business here and there, but they must stick closely to the script. Differences between a role and role behavior in real life are neither as easy to detect nor as easy to control as departures from a script.

Third, on the stage there is a programmed and predictable relationship between cues and responses. One performer's line is a cue for a very specific response from another actor. In a real life, we can choose from a variety of cues and responses. A student may decide to tell a lecturer that his examinations are the worst he has ever encountered. On hearing this, the lecturer may tell the student that it is not his place to judge or ask him to explain further so that some improvement can be made. The lecturer can choose from several roles. Moreover, the student can choose from a variety of responses to the lecturer's behavior.

It should not be assumed that the range of acceptable responses is limitless. Only certain responses are considered legitimate. It is not an appropriate response for the lecturer to eject bodily the student from his office, and the student is not supposed to pound in protest on the lecturer's desk.

C. Concluding Comment

It is understandable that the idea of social role has repeatedly been described in theatrical terms. What could be more plausible than an analogy between prescribed behavioral patterns for actors in given parts and socially defined behavior norms for persons in given positions?

Such an analogy may be poor and misleading. Whereas the unreality of events is assumed in the theater, it cannot be assumed with respect to society. Despite the theatrical connotations of role, it would be wrong to see the role-playing social personality as an unreal person who has merely to drop his mask to appear as his true self. The characterization of man as a homo sociologicus is more than a metaphor. His roles are more than masks that can be cast off; his social behavior is more than a play from which audience and actors alike can return to the true reality.

Does our society make us what we are? The answer to this depends in part, on how "society" and "make" are defined. Holists answer this question affirmatively by conceiving of society as things which determine their members rather like the way dies stamp out metal products (Fay, 1998). We, however, are not mere reflections of the society to which we belong. No cultural entity is so fixed, closed, or coherent that we can be a reflection of it.

Indeed, group definition is an ongoing process in which its members struggle with one another to find a suitable place for themselves within a structure of rules whose power depends on their interpretive activity. If by "make" you understand enable or constrain, therefore, our society indeed, make us. But if by "make" you mean determine, then our society does not make us what we are. It means that in the process of socialization we are not passive entities upon which social imperatives and rules are impressed as if we are a wax tablet.

"All the world is not simply a stage.

And all the men and women are not merely players!"


Dahrendorf, Ralf, 1978, "Homo Sociologicus, On the History, Significance, and Limits of the Category of Social Role", in Essays in the Theory of Society, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Descartes, Rene, 1975, A Discourse on Method: Meditations on the First Philosophy, Principles of Philosophy, translated by John Veitch, New York: Everyman's Library.

Fay, Brian, 1998, Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Goffman, Erving, 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: A Doubleday Anchor Books.

Hampshire, Stuart, 1957, The Age of Reasons: The 17th Century Philosophers, New York: A Mentor Book.

Marx, Karl, 1963, "Economic and Philosophical Manuscript", in Karl Marx, Early Writings, translated and edited by T. B. Bottomore, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Merton, Robert K., 1976, "Social Knowledge and Public Policy", in Sociological Ambivalence and Other Essays, New York: The Free Press.

Sephard, Jon M., 1987, Sociology, A Complete Teaching Package, New York: West Publishing Company.

Shakespeare, W., 1954, "As You Like It", in Thomas M. Parrot, ed., Shakespeare, Twenty-Three Plays and the Sonnets, Wisconsin: The United States Armed Forces Institute.

Shakespeare, W., 1954, "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark", in Thomas M. Parrot, ed., Shakespeare, Twenty-Three Plays and the Sonnets, Wisconsin: The United States Armed Forces Institute.

Zanden, James W. Vander, 1990, Sociology: The Core, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

1. Sakban Rosidi is a lecturer of History of Modern Thought and Research Methodology, College of Foreign Languages Malang. He is currently a post-graduate student in Social Sciences, Airlangga University.

Senin, 26 Juli 2010

Sakban Rosidi, Paradigma Keilmuan Realisme Marxian

Telaah Ringkas Berdasar Fungsi-fungsi Ilmu[1]

Oleh Sakban Rosidi[2]

Let us assume man to be man, and his relation to the world to be a human one. Then love only can be exchanged for love, trust for trust, etc. (Marx, 1964: 193-194).

Few authors have had the fate of being misunderstood and distorted as Marx has been. Few authors, also, have been so often quoted and so little read (Fromm, 1964).

Apakah kutipan di atas terkesan membela Karl Marx? Memang tampak benar. Sebab, seperti kata Erich Fromm (1964), sedikit sekali pemikir yang bernasib disalah-pahami dan disimpangkan seperti Marx. Juga, amat sedikit penulis yang kelewat sering dikutip, tetapi jarang sekali dibaca secara tuntas seperti Marx.

Merujuk tengara Elster (1986), mudah dikesan bahwa Marx telah dimartabati sebagai nabi kaum bagi sosialis-komunis, tetapi dihujat bagai kafir bagi kaum kapitalis-individualis. Celakanya, baik pemujaan maupun penghujatan dilakukan nyaris tanpa sikap kritis. Lebih kejam lagi, Marx telah dilihat sebagai pribadi statik tanpa perubahan. Padahal, seperti kelaziman setiap manusia, Marx pun berproses dan berubah secara sangat berarti (Bottomore, 1964). Semasa muda, Marx dikenal sebagai pengagum Hegel. Bersama kaum Hegelian muda, Marx menggarap gagasan pemerdekaan manusia.

Tak pelak, di bawah pujian para pemuja dan kesumat para penghujat, tulisan ini terpaksa tampil secara agak berbeda. Tidak menempatkan pemikiran Marxisme sebagai ideologi, tetapi lebih melihat Marxisme sebagai paradigma keilmuan sosial. Hajatnya pun teramat sederhana, yakni sekedar menawarkan satu lagi pilihan paradigma bagi pemerhati gejala kemasyarakatan dan kebudayaan.

Atas nama kesederhanaan pula, sajian ditata menurut empat fungsi ilmu, tak terkecuali ilmu-ilmu sosial, yaitu: (1) menggambarkan (to describe) kenyataan, (2) menjelaskan (to explain) kenyataan, (3) meramalkan (to predict) kenyataan, dan --- bila dikehendaki -- (4) mengendalikan (to control) kenyataan (Van Dyke, 1978).

A. Marxisme, Paradigma Keilmuan Sosial

Menurut Olsen, Lodwick, dan Dunlap (1992), baik wawasan dunia, paradigma sosial, ideologi, ataupun paradigma keilmuan pada dasarnya merupakan bingkai penafsiran kenyataan sosial (construction of social reality). Hanya tingkat ketersuratan (explicitness), serta kawasan kenyataan sosialnya yang berbeda.

Dikias sebagai lensa mental, peta kognitif serta perseptual, wawasan dunia (worldviews) tidak lain adalah sistem keyakinan dan nilai-nilai yang berfungsi menetapkan makna kenyataan sosial yang secara budaya diterima (establishing the culturally accepted definitions of social reality).

Sebagai orientasi perseptual dan kognitif, paradigma sosial (social paradigm) pada dasarnya merupakan wawasan dunia mini (mini-worldviews) masyarakat komunikatif. Paradigma ini berfungsi menafsirkan dan menjelaskan aspek-aspek penting dan tertentu kehidupan sosial (interpreting and explaining particular aspects of social life). Jadi selain penggunanya terbatas, paradigma sosial juga menyangkut aspek-aspek tertentu kehidupan (Olsen, Lodwick, and Dunlap, 1992).

Ditamsil sebagai argumentasi yang diturunkan dari wawasan dunia atau paradigma sosial sekelompok orang, ideologi berfungsi memberikan makna, menyederhanakan keberadaan, dan menciptakan kepastian (providing meaning, simplifying existence, and creating certainty). Walaupun bisa dibedakan menjadi ideologi partikular dan ideologi total, bergantung pada proporsi penganutnya, tetapi jelas bahwa ideologi mengklaim apakah sesuatu itu benar atau salah, serta baik atau buruk (Olsen, Lodwick, and Dunlap, 1992).

Tak salah memang kalau seseorang memperlakukan Marxisme sebagai wawasan dunia, paradigma sosial, ataupun ideologi. Namun, juga bisa diterima bila Marxisme digunakan sebagai semacam paradigma keilmuan sosial. Dicandra sebagai paradigma keilmuan (scientific paradigm), Marxisme tak lain adalah perspektif intelektual pokok kajian ilmu.

Tak beda dengan paradigma keilmuan lain, mengikuti pemikiran Romm (1991), Marxisme juga berfungsi memandu, memadukan, dan menafsirkan kerja para ilmuwan (guiding, integrating, and interpreting the work of scientists). Ini mencakup fungsi apa yang harus dikaji, pertanyaan apa yang harus diajukan, bagaimana pertanyaan tersebut harus diajukan, aturan-aturan apa yang harus diikuti dalam menjawab pertanyaan. Jadi, paradigma keilmuan merupakan satuan kesepakatan terluas dalam suatu ilmu yang berfungsi membedakan satu masyarakat ilmiah dengan masyarakat ilmiah lain.

B. Model Deskriptif Marxian atas Masyarakat

Bagaimana Marx menggambarkan kenyataan masyarakat? Secara lugas, Marx dan Engels (1872) mengemukakan bahwa sejarah semua masyarakat yang pernah ada adalah sejarah perjuangan kelas. Ini menunjukkan bahwa: (1) hakekat kehidupan, menurut Marx, adalah pertentangan satu kelas sosial melawan kelas sosial lain, (2) pengkelasan sosial yang saling berlawanan terbentuk karena perbedaan pemilikan faktor produksi utama, dan (3) kemajuan peradaban dari tatanan sosial lama menuju tatanan sosial baru, merupakan akibat pertentangan antar kelas sosial suatu masyarakat.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large of in the common ruin of the contending classes" (Marx and Engels, 1848: 6).

Dalam khazanah sosiologi, secara tak terbantah Marx telah menjadi perintis perspektif teoretik konflik. Meminjam Darhendorf (1959), perspektif ini memodelkan masyarakat dengan anggapan dasar:

(1) Every society is at every point subject to processes of change; social change is ubiquitous.

(2) Every society displays at every point dissensus and conflict; social conflict is ubiquitous.

(3) Every element in a society renders a contribution to its disintegration and change.

(4) Every society is based on the coercion of some of its members by others (Dahrendorf, 1959: 161-162).

Perubahan sosial, perpecahan, pertikaian, dan pemaksaan menjadi ciri dalam setiap pemodelan masyarakat yang menerapkan perspektif konflik Marxian. Teori konflik sosial, yang hingga kini masih belum mampu membebaskan diri dari bayang-bayang Marx ini, mengarahkan perhatiannya pada kepentingan-kepentingan kelompok yang saling bertentangan.

C. Model Eksplanatori Marxian atas Masyarakat

Bagaimana Marx menjelaskan kenyataan masyarakat? Baik sejarah maupun hubungan intra dan antar masyarakat, oleh Marx niscaya dijelaskan dalam semangat dialektika-materialisme dan determinisme ekonomi. Kalau dialektika materialisme tertampil jelas dalam manifesto partai komunis, maka betapa kental nuansa determinisme ekonomi justru menampak tegas dalam telaah tentang hakekat uang (Marx, 1964).

What I am and can do is, therefore, not all determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy the the most beautiful woman for myself. Consequently, I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness, its power to repel, is annulled by money. As an individual I am lame, but money provides me with twenty-four legs. Therefore, I am not lame. I am a detestable, dishonorable, unscrupulous, and stupid man, but money is honoured and so also is its possessor. Besides money saves me the trouble of being dishonest; therefore, I am presumed honest. Money is the highest good, and so its possessor is good (Marx, 1964: 191).

Dalam semangat dialektika-materialisme, Marx berupaya menjelaskan gejala konflik sosial dalam bentuk rangkaian proposisi bahwa: (1) ketimpangan distribusi alat produksi mengakibatkan konflik kepentingan kelas bourjuis dengan protelariat, (2) peningkatan kesadaran kelas protelariat akan kepentingannya membuat mereka mempertanyakan keabsahan pola distribusi alat produksi, (3) kesadaran kelas protelariat dan pertanyaan terhadap keabsahan pola distribusi, mendorong kerjasama protelariat melawan bourjuis, (4) penyatuan ideologik dan struktur kepemimpinan politik mengakibatkan polarisasi bourjuis-protelariat, (5) polarisasi bourjuis-protelariat mengakibatkan konflik kekerasan, (6) konflik kekerasan mengakibatkan perubahan strutural dan redistribusi alat produksi langka (Turner, 1986).

Pun dalam dialektika sejarah, Marx menempatkan kenyataan dunia benda sebagai penentu dunia batin manusia. Kredo demikian menampak jelas dalam penentuan macam dan hubungan struktur sosial Marxian, yaitu: yaitu: bangunan atas (superstructure), dan bangunan bawah (sub-structure) masyarakat. Bangunan bawah adalah tataran kebendaan, dengan muatan kekuatan penggerak perjalanan sejarah, sedangkan bangunan atas adalah tataran pemikiran manusia yang tak lain mencerminkan konfigurasi tatanan kebendaan (Stumpf, 1983: 408).

Sebagai bagian bangunan atas, agama telah dinilai oleh Marx gagal dalam mengemban fungsi sejatinya, dan hanya memberi manusia tidak lebih dari khayalan belaka. Padahal, Marx mencita-citakan agar manusia harus menikmati baik kepuasan jasmani maupun rokhani.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusion about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions (Marx, 1964: 44).

Ditelusur ke hajat dasarnya, Marx tidak mengecam substansi agama, tetapi justru kegagalan agama dalam memberikan kebahagiaan sejati. Kritik Marx atas agama adalah kritik terhadap perilaku masyarakat beragama, dan bukan agama itu sendiri. Agama telah menjadi sekedar dadah kaum kalah, dan menjadi gendam para pemenang.

D. Model Prediktif Marxian atas Masyarakat

Bagaimana Marx meramal masa depan masyarakat kapitalistik? Bila dikenakan pada masyarakat sekarang, maka tipologi masyarakat menurut Marx terdiri atas feudalisme dan kapitalisme. Feudalisme, sebagai tatanan sosial yang didasarkan pada pengutamaan tanah sebagai faktor produksi, merupakan sintesis pertentangan antara kaum bangsawan (patrician) melawan rakyat jelata (plebeian). Feudalisme sendiri, mengakibatkan polarisasi masyarakat, menjadi kelas tuan tanah (Lords) melawan budak tani (Serfs).

Pertentangan antara tuan tanah dengan budak tani yang berlangsung sejak revolusi industri, membentuk kapitalisme sebagai tatanan sosial baru yang didasarkan pada pengutamaan kapital sebagai faktor produksi. Dalam masyarakat kapitalistik, polarisasi masyarakat membentuk dua kelas sosial, kelas pemilik modal (Bourgeoisie) melawan kelas buruh (Proletariat).

Ketika membahas kecenderungan sejarah penumpukan kapital, Marx (1957) meramalkan bahwa kesalahan melekat dalam kapitalisme memaksa kaum kapitalis menggali kubur mereka sendiri. Kejadian demikian, menandakan datangnya kemenangan kaum kelas buruh sehingga mampu membentuk masyarakat komunis, sebagai tahapan lebih maju demi tujuan utopian masyarakat tanpa kelas (classless society).

The progress of industry, which the bourgeoisie involuntarily and passively promotes, substitutes for the isolation of the workers by mutual competition, their revolutionary unification by association. Thus the development of large-scale industry cuts from under the feet of bourgeoisie the ground upon which capitalism controls production and appropriates the products of labour. Before all, therefore, the bourgeoisie produces its own gravediggers. Its down-fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable (Marx, 1957: 847)

Sekali lagi, sejarah materialisme (historical materialism) akan terus berjalan sepanjang belum tercipta --- atau malah hingga kita meninggal --- tatanan masyarakat sempurna (perfect societal order) berupa masyarakat sosialis. Walaupun kejatuhan kelas borjuis dan kejayaan kelas proletariat merupakan keniscayaan sejarah yang tidak dapat dihindari, tak berarti bahwa kaum proletariat tinggal berpangku-tangan guna menunggu kebangkrutan kapitalisme.

E. Praksis Marxian atas Derita Masyarakat

Bagaimana hasil kajian Marx memberi ilham bagi kebangkitan kaum buruh? Hakekat mendasar manusia, menurut Marx, berupa kehendak bebas. Bebas tidak sekedar dalam lingkungan kebendaan, tetapi juga bebas dalam mengungkapkan diri sendiri. Walaupun kondisi material yang memadai sangat penting, tetapi keserba-adaan material bukan merupakan kondisi yang diperlukan. Perwujudan diri individu, dalam pendangan ini, terdiri atas pemenuhan kebutuhan daya-cipta dan potensi kesenian.

Karena itu, proyek terakhir Marx adalah mempercepat proses dialektika sejarah sehingga segera sampai pada tatanan sempurna masyarakat. Dunia harus diubah dalam rangka mempermudah perwujudan sepenuh diri manusia.

The world should be changed in order to facilitate man's self-realization. This is what led Marx to say that hitherto, "...philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the point is, however, to change it". This is the principle of Marx's praxis (Mayer, 1951).

Seluruh rangkaian fungsi ilmu sebagaimana di depan, bagi Marx tak lain adalah sekedar piranti perenungan atas kenyataan penindasan. Sayang, menurut Marx, para cerdik-cendekia hanya berhenti sebatas merenungkan, atau paling tinggi menawarkan pemahaman. Karena itu, kecaman keras tak henti dilontar oleh Marx, bahwa para filsuf hanya sibuk menafsirkan dunia dalam beragam cara, padahal pokok persoalannya, bagaimana mengubah kenyataan remuk-redam dunia dunia.

Praksis, sebagai daur berkesinambungan antara perenungan (reflection) dan tindakan (action) harus menjadi model perjuangan. Marx pun berpesan agar sebagai pemimpin (vanguard), kaum cerdik-cendekia membantu kaum pekerja untuk membangun kesadaran kelas sebagai daya perjuangan mereka.

D. Bahan Renungan

Menutup tulisan ini, menarik bila diajukan pertanyaan: Benarkah Marx juga menarik perhatian pada soal rasa manusia? Jawabnya benar. "Mari kita pahami manusia sebagai manusia, dan hubungannya dengan dunia pun harus manusiawi. Maka cinta hanya dapat ditukar dengan cinta, kepercayaan dengan kepercayaan, dst...."

Let us assume man to be man, and his relation to the world to be a human one. Then love only can be exchanged for love, trust for trust, etc. If you wish to enjoy art you must be an artistically cultivated person. If you wish to influence other people you must be a person who really has a stimulating and encouraging effect upon others. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return, i.e. if you are not able, by the manifestation of yourself as a loving person, to make yourself a beloved person, then your love is impotent and a misfortune (Marx, 1964: 193-194).

Bila anda berharap bisa menikmati seni, maka anda pun harus menjadi pribadi yang dibesarkan secara seni. Bila anda berharap bisa mempengaruhi orang lain, maka anda pun harus menjadi seorang pribadi yang benar-benar memberi pengaruh berupa rangsang dan keberanian terhadap orang lain. Segala hubungan anda dengan manusia dan alam harus merupakan ungkapan khusus, bertalian dengan objek yang anda kehendaki, dan dari kehidupan individual anda yang nyata. Bila anda mencintai tanpa menumbuhkan cinta kembali, dalam hal ini bila anda tidak mampu, dengan perwujudan diri anda sebagai pribadi yang mencintai, untuk membuat diri anda sendiri sebagai pribadi tercinta, maka cinta anda tanpa-daya dan itu suatu ketidak-berutungan.

Selamat bercinta!

Daftar Rujukan

  • Darhendorf, Ralf, 1959, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, London: Routledge.
  • Elster, Jon., 1986, An Introduction to Karl Marx, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Fromm, Erich, 1964, "Forward", in Bottomore, T., ed., Early Writings, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  • Marx, Karl, 1957, Capital, translated by Eden and Cedar Paul, London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
  • Marx, Karl, 1964, Early Writings, Bottomore, T., ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  • Marx, Karl, and Frederich Engels, 1963, "The Manifesto of Communist Party", in John Somerville and Ronald E. Santoni, Social and Political Philosophy, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
  • Mayer, Frederick, 1951, A History of Modern Philosophy, California: University of Rodlands.
  • Olsen, Marvin E., Dora G. Lodwick and Riley E. Dunlap, 1992, Viewing the World Ecologically, Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Romm, Norma R.A., 1991, The Methodologies of Positivism and Marxism, London: Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd.
  • Stumpf, Samuel E., 1982, Philosophy: History & Problems, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  • Turner, J. H. , 1986, The Structure of Sociological Theory, Chicago: Dorsey Press.
  • Van Dyke, Vernon, 1978, Political Science: A Philosopical Analysis, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

[1] Tulisan ini semula berjudul “Paradigma Keilmuan Sosial Marxian”, disajikan sebagai kertas kerja pada Temu Sentani Mewaspadai Marxisme, Lembaga Penerbitan Mahasiswa dan Majalah Ekspresi, Sekolah Tinggi Bahasa Asing (STIBA) Malang, 4 Juli 2000. Disunting sangat sedikit sebagai bahan kuliah Filsafat Ilmu, Fakultas Syari’ah, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang, 2009.

[2] Sakban Rosidi adalah pelajar dan pembaca filsafat untuk lintas disiplin, dengan latar belakang sarjana ilmu pendidikan, ilmu ekonomi, bahasa dan sastra Inggris, pasca-sarjana magister sosiologi politik, kandidat doktor ilmu sosial, dan kandidat doktor manajemen pendidikan.

Mohammad Noorsyam, Ideologi Komunisme: Teori dan Praktek

Dalam Wawasan Ideologi Pancasila*

Mohammad Noor Syam**

Dasar Pikiran

Sebagai manusia, apalagi bangsa senantiasa memiliki pandangan hidup (filsafat hidup) yang menjadi sumber cita karsa, wawasan dan norma dasar dalam menentukan sikap terhadap sesuatu. Artinya, filsafat hidup ini akan menjadi asas normatif atau dasar penilaian atas suatu sikap, tindakan ataupun nilai lain yang di hadapinya. Jadi, filsafat hidup ini berfungsi paradigma atau parameter untuk menilai:benar, salah, baik atau buruk; bahkan adil atau zalim, kebaikan atau kejahatan!

Filsafat hidup menjiwai dan melandasi sikap hidup manusia; bahkan memberikan identitas dan kepribadian (jati diri) secara personal maupun nasional. Kadar (kualitas) kesadaran manusia dan pengalamannya memberikan citra atau martabat kepribadian manusia itu.

Latar belakang Ajaran Komunisme

Karl Marx (1818-1889) sebenarnya membangun teorinya dengan merevisi (menjiplak) ajaran filsafat George Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1831) yang memang gurunya dalam filsafat. Hegel sebagai tokoh idealisme murni mengajarkan:

Bahwa realita semesta adalah proses perkembangan ide (pemikiran) yang bertumpu atas asas dialektika:

Thesis-antithesis (lawannya) yang melahirkan sinthesis. Sinthesis ini menjadi thesis (baru T2), begitu seterusnya.

Periksa Skema:

Garis lurus T-1 --- AT-1, melahirkan sinthesis (S-1 T2) proses

Perkembangan sejarah realita atau pemikiran berpuncak (berujung) pada Tuhan Maha Pencipta.

Ajaran Hegel mengandung essensi proses evolusi sejarah dalam dialektika (perkembangan, pertumbuhan yang melahirkan sesuatu yang lebih sempurna, lebih ideal).

Jadi, idealisme Hegel merupakan asa filsafat tentang perkembangan budaya dan sejarah pemikiran manusia; teori ini memgajarkan asas dan faham evolusi (teori evolusi)

Realitas manusia bukanlah individu, melainkan realitas kolektivitas (masyarakat, negara). Individu hanya ada oleh dan didalam kebersamaan: keluarga, masyarakat, negara.

Negara penjelmaan ide Tuhan; karenanya penguasa atau yang berdaulat di dalam negara berfungsi sebagai “wakil” Tuhan di Bumi. Jadi, kekuasaan kepala negara dianggap mewakili Tuhan; dengan kekuasaan (kedaulatan) mutlak. Ajaran ini melahirkan teori kedaulatan negara (teori authority, totaliter, diktatur)

Tentang hak asasi manusia, Hegel mengajarkan asas integralisme, bahwa realita semesta diakui, manusia bagian utuh suatu masyarakat dan negara. Individu warga negara. Individu warga negara lebur di dalam masyarakat dan negara lebur didalam masyarakat dan negara (kolektivitas). Karenanya hak asasi manusia (HAM) perseorangan, individu tidak diakui. Negara hanya mengakui kolektivitas, totalitas, integralitas. Manusia berfungsi dan bermakna didalam kolektivitas, yakni dalam fungsi-fungsi sosial; kekaryaannya (tenaga kerja, buruh, profesi, pejabat, polisi, tentara, petani).

Memahami Ajaran Marxisme-Komunisme

Pokok- pokok ajaran Hegel idealisme murni ini diubah Karl Marx menjadi ajaran atau teori yang aktual di bumi dengan asas- asas dan praktek komunisme sebagai berikut:

1. Bahwa semua kehidupan akan terjamin berkat perjuangan antar mereka dalam memperebutkan prasyarat kehidupan: modal, benda ekonomi, tanah.

2. Bahwa kehidupan (manusia, masyarakat) tergantung atas benda (materi) ekonomi… yang hanya dapat dikuasai, dimiliki melalui perjuangan antar mereka. Hanya mereka yang kuat yang mampu menguasai benda ekonomi; dan mereka yang akan bertahan hidup (survival of the fittest). Karenanya diakui sebagai doktrin bahwa sepanjang kehidupan semua mahluk (termasuk manusia) terikat dalam proses hukum dialektika-historis-materialisme ini sebagai hukum alam.

Kelompok manusia yang kuat akan terus bartahan, akan berkembang, yakni mereka yang menguasai atau mendominasi kelompok yang lemah. Inilah wujud penindasan si kuat atas si lemah dalam fenomena kapitalisme yang memeras tenaga buruh untuk memperbesar kekayaan (kapital): bahan baku diolah buruh menjadi produksi atau komoditas yang mendatangkan laba (surplus theory). Kaum buruh yang dikuasai kaum modal sesungguhnya tertindas (terhisap, explotation), karena mereka tidak menerima hak sebagaimana mestinya kaum buruh atau pekerja yang tertindas ini ialah rakyat banyak yaitu kaum proletar.

Fenomena ad 1-2 adalah realita hidup. Kaum yang lemah dalam pergulatan material (1-2) ini lalu menciptakan dunia mereka sebagai pelarian (dan hiburan). Biarlah kami kalah dan menderita akibat si kuat (akibat si kuat, penindas); namun kami percaya Tuhan Maha Adil, kami akan menerima kesejahteraan dibalik kekalahan ini (diakhirat). Jadi, menurut Marx: “, bukan kesadaran manusia menemukan keberadaaannya; tapi sebaliknya keberadaan sosial manusia itulah yang menemukan kesadarannya. ”

Marx menggunggulkan peran ekonomi (materi) dan politik (kekuasaan) dibandingkan martabat manusia (rohani); karenanya ajarannya berwatak materialisme dan atheisme. (bandingkan Ebenstein dan Fogelman 1987: 25). dalam Manifesto Komunis, Karl Marx mengajarkan: “bukan Tuhan yang menciptakan manusia, melainkan manusialah yang (lemah, tertindas) menciptakan Tuhan1!” karena itu pula, Marx menyatakan “religionis the opiumof the people. ”This saying has become the conerstone of the whole marxist outlook on religion (Marx 1960:9), Artinya, asas demikian merupakan cardinal thesis of the communism.

Menurut Surjanto Poespowardojo (1989:25): “bagi Marx, atheisme adalah tuntutan mutlak terlaksananya humanisme: jadi perwujudan riil dari apotheose atau pendewaan manusia. ” Dari doktrin inilah dunia mengerti bahwa ajaran Marxisme-Komunisme berwatak atheisme, karenanya mereka anti agama. Sebab agama akan melumpuhkan perlawanan manusia terhadap mereka yang kuat, yang menindas, kaum kapitalisme. Marx berkata: hanya mereka yang kalah dan yang lemah yang menciptakan dunia impian (khayal) tentang: Tuhan dan Surga,. karena mereka memang tidka berdaya dalam perjuangan meraih kemenangan, (Ebenstein 1987:2-11).

Untuk menang rakyat harus kuat (bersatu). Rakyat bersatu ini mampu merebut kekayaan kapitalis dengan cara apapun (tujuan menghalalkan segala cara; terutama dengan revolusi). Marx juga berseru “Hai kaum buruh (proletar) sedunia bersatulah; rebutlah kekuatan ekonomi dari kapitalis. Kalian tidak akan kehilangan apa-apa, kecuali belenggu yang merantai dirimu (dari kebebasan dan kemiskinan). ” Inilah doktrin (provokasi) revolusi awal abad XX. Berkat revolusi, kaum proletar memilikki kekuasaan dalam negara (supra struktur). (Ebenstein 1987:7-10). Persatuan buruh ddan rakyat terutama dalam organisasi partai komunis. Partai inilah yang memegang kendali kekuasaan dalam negara (sebagai partai tunggal). Negara dip[erintah oleh rakyat (demokrasi rakyat). Tetapi, karena dalam negara hanya ada satu partai rakyat ini menjadi pemimpin mereka. Atas nama rakyat, atas nama partai negara pemimpin ini memegang kekuasaan mutlak dalam negara (demokrasi rakyat, otoriter, diktaktur). “The changes is marked by revolutionary episodes and in this respect Marxism may be seenas a form of catastrophe theory (Coubrey & White 1996: 111).

Melalui revolusi ini dalam masyarakat atau negara tidak ada lagi kelas kapitalis (majikan) dan kelas buruh (kaum buruh, proletar. Semua yang ada dalam negara hanya ada satu kelas pekerja (manusia bekerja mengolah benda alam menjadi benda ekonomi melalui kerja keras tenaga buruh). Bagi negara modern, dengan iptek dan industri canggih, maka teori tenaga buruh digantikan dengan teknologi atau mesin, maka teori Marx menjadi runtuh. (silahkan amati dan saksikan negara komunis yang berantakan).

Negara tanpa kelas sosial yang berbeda-beda stratanya; karenanya ada kepercayaan paham komunis mewujudkan masyarakat kolektif yang sama rata, sama rasa. Negara dan kekuasaan didalamnya adalah milik rakyat; tidak adakelas pengasa dan kelas opposisi; yang ada hanyya partai yang atas nama rakyatberkuasa (kekuasaan tunggal dari partai tunggal dalam negara, partai negara).

Jadi, dalam negara tidak ada kelas sosial (strata sosial); yang ada hanya satu kelas kelas pekerja, kelas buruh, oleh semua, untuk masing-masing bidang dalam negara: pertanian, pertenakan, perikanan, industri, perdagangan, polisi, prajurit dan penjabat partai atau negara: berfungsi sebagai supra struktur (Ebenstein 1987:12-15).

Filsafat Negara Pancasila

PPKI sebagai pendiri negara mufakat menetapkan mengesahkan dan mengamankan (kepada generasi penerus) bahwa negara prtoklamasi di tegaskan berdasarkan nilai fundamental yang terumus di dalam UUD Negara 1945 dengan azas-azas sebagai berikut:

Negara kesatuan RI adalah Negara berkedaulatan Rakyat dengan berdasarkan kepada: Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa, (Pancasila: sebagai filsafat negara). Kedudukan Pancasila demikian diangkat dari sumber sosiso-budaya, yakni sebagai filsafat hidup bangsa. Dengan demikian, secara konstitusional dan impiratif kedudukan dan fungsi filsafat negara Pancasila merupakan ideologi negara, ideologi nasional.

Negara kesatuan RI adalah negara hukum (Rechsstaat), yang berkewajiban menegakkan hukum (supremasi hukum) demi keadilan: oleh semua, untuk semua warga negara.

Negara berdasarkan atas Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa: artinya negara dan bangasa (rakyat) Indonesia menegakkan paham Ketuhanan (theisme-religius) berdasarkan agama dianut masing-masing warga negara.

Asas-asas fundamental ini memberikan identitas dan mertamat atas sistem kenegaraan RI, yaang dapat di namakan sebagai sistem negara pancasila (dibandingkan, diantara) berbagai sistem kenegaraan dalam kehidupan internasional modern, seperti: Liberalisme-kapitalisme, marxisme-komunisme, fasisme, nazisme, sosialisme dan fundamentalisme, yang bersaing merebut supremasi dalam politik internasional..

Berdasarkan norma filosofis ideologis dan konsitusional tatanan kebangsaan dan kenegaraan RI demikian, maka bangsa Indonesia menegakkan asas kedaulatan rakyat (demokrasi) berdasarkan filsafat Pancasila, manusia Indonesia mengakui kedudukan dan martabat manusia yang mulia (di hadapan alam, budaya dan Tuhan); karenanya bangsa Indonesia menegakkan negara demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia (HAM).

Bangsa Indonesia dengan penuh kesadaran akan nilai-nilai fundamental di atas, menegakkan demokrasi dan hak asasi bukanlah semata-mata demi demokrasi dan hak asasi; melainkan menegakkan demi martabat dan moral yang luhur dan mulya manusia dan kemanusiaan, karenanya, demokrasi senantiasa berdasarkan asas moral yang kita junjung bersama; demikian pula hak asasi. Artinya, demokrasi bukanlah demi kebebasan, yang menjurus kepada anarchisme; demikian pula HAM senantiasa memberikan kesadaran moral kepada manusia atas kewajiban asasi yang di amanatkan Maha Pencipta. Jadi, hak asasi (hak hidup, kemerdekaan dan hak milik) sesungguhnya adalah anugrah sekaligus amanat Maha Pencipta. Asas keseimbangan hak asasi dan kewajiban asasi ini akan menentukan kualitas kepribadian dan martabat manusia. (Mohammad Noor Syam 1998:147-160) Sebaliknya manusia yang memuja kebebasan, sesungguhnya adalah manusia a-sosial, a-nasional bahkan amoral (karena mereka melupakan kewajiban sesama kepada bangsa dan kepada Maha Pencipta).

Analisis di atas berlaku bagi manusia yang memuja kebebasan (anarchisme, nihilisme), lebih-lebih ketuhanan dan agama (atheisme).


Memahami dasar komunisme diatas bangsa indonesia menilainya berdasarkan filsafat hidup (filsafat negara, idiologi negara) pancasila sebagai kaidah fundamental (norma dasar, paradigma, parameter). Secara fundamental nilai-nilai pancasila (sila I-V) mengandung asas-asas no;rmatif sebagai berikut:

1. Sila I berwatak theisme-religius; menjiwai asas moral maanusia indonesia. Sebagai wawasan Pancasila karena sesui dengan kodrat manusia, akal budi nurani yang mencerminka nilai nilai supra rasional dan supra natural.

2. Sila II kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab mengajarkan bahwa tujuan yang luhur atau mulia wajib diraih dengan asas keadilan yang beradab atau bermoral. Artinya, hak asasi manusia (sebagai anugrah dan amant ) seimbang dengan kewajiban asasi manusia.

3. Sila III: persatuan Indonesia: menjujung tinggi integritas nasional dalam wawasan nusantara; bukan berpaham Internasional.

4. Sila IV: kerakyatan, mengandung makna paham demokrasi: musyawarah dalam lembaga perwakilan. Sila ini menjamin tegaknya pemerintahan demokrasi:dari, oleh dan untuk rakyat yang memegang kedaulatan didalam kedaulatan didalam negara. Pemimpin pemimpin partai melalui pemilu akan dipilih oleh rakyat untuk rakyat menjadi wakil wakil dilembaga pemerintahan (supra struktur; legeslatif eksekutif dan yudikatif). “paham komunisme menegakkan diktatoe proletariat, sistim otoriter; sekaligus dehumanisi, ekspansi dan internasionalisme (Soeryanto, 194-200).

5. Sila V: keadilan sosial bagi seluruh rakyat Indonesia, tiap pribadi manusia akan menerima haknya sesui dengan penuaian kewajiban asasinya: sesama dan dihadapan Tuhan Yang Maha Esa. Jadi, bukan sama rasa, sama rasa !

Nilai-nilai dalam idiologi dalam pancasila ditegakkan berdasarkan UUD negara secara melembaga sebagai negara berkedaulatan rakyat dan negara hukum. Jadi, budayakebangsaan, budaya dan moral politik rakyat Indonesia secara fundamental dijiwai dan dilandasi moral pancasila. Semuanya menjadi kewajiban tiap pribadi bagi warga negara RI yang memiliki kesetiaan dan kebanggaan nasional (kepada: bangsanya, filsafat negarapancasila dan UUD Negara 45).

Menegakkan budaya dan moral pancasila secara melembaga adalah menegakkan berkedaulatan rakyat dan negara hukum berdasarkan pancasila dan UUD 45.

Semoga bermanfaat !

Malang, 1 juli 2000

Daftar pustaka

Coubrey, Hilaire Mc and Nigel D white, 1996: Textboox on jurspundence (second edition), Glasglow, bell & Bain limited.

EB Enstein, William & Edwin Fogelman, 1987: Today’s Isms (edisi IX) new york, Prentice Hal, Inc.

Karl Marx & F. Engels, 1995: On Religion, Moscow, Foreign Language Publishing House.

Mohammad Noor syam 1998: Penjabaran filsafat pancasila dalam filsafat hukum (sebagai landasan pembinaan sistem Hukum nasional), Malang Laboratorium Pancasila IKIP Malang.

Soerjanto Poespowardojo 1989: Filsafat pancasila, sebuah pendekatan sosio-Budaya, Jakarta, PT Gramedia.

*Makalah disajikan pada Temu Sentani "Mewaspadai Marxisme", yang diprakasai oleh Lembaga Peberbitan Mahasiwa STIBA MALANG dan Majalah Ekspresi, Selasa 4 Juli 2000.

** Prof. Dr. Mohammad Noorsyam adalah Guru Besar Pendidikan Pancasila, dengan latar belakang pendidikan Filsafat, Ilmu Pendidikan dan Ilmu Hukum