[kuliah tamu di Program MIK] tentang Konflik Kepentingan dan Tantangan Etisnya dari perspektif SC & Comm Ethics

Pada hari Rabu 2 November 2022 yg lalu, saya diundang oleh Dr. Daniel Susilo sebagai Kordinator Mata Kuliah Filsafat dan Etika Komunikasi pada program Magister Ilmu Komunikasi (MIK), FIKOM UMN untuk membagikan wawasan keilmuan saya terkait topik yg amat menarik dan relevan dengan studi disertasi saya, yaitu soal Konflik Kepentingan dan Tinjauan Etisnya. Audiens dari kuliah tamu secara daring adalah mahasiswa program MIK, Batch 3 semester 1, sejumlah 18 orang (yang hadir 15 orang saja pada malam itu).

Berikut tampilan cover salindia dari materi pemaparan yang saya sampaikan:

Dengan memerhatikan sejumlah arahan atau kisi-kisi (Silabus) perkuliahan yang diberikan mas Daniel, demikian saya memanggilnya, saya mengulas topik di atas dengan 3 langkah berikut ini: bertolak dari fenomena yg teramati, kemudian penegasan pisau analisis yg akan digunakan utk membedah fenomena tsb, dan akhirnya pemaparan hasil analisis serta rekomendasinya. Sederhana dan jelas bukan langkah2nya? 😀

Adapun, fenomena teramati yg masih sering terjadi terkait breach of ethics, khususnya academic ethics, tergambar pada skrinsyut2 berikut ini:

Sementara, untuk pisau analisisnya, saya membuat distingsi terlebih dahulu, baru menajamkannya dengan definisi operasional terkait focal concepts yg digunakan yaitu: Etika, Etika Komunikasi, Etika Strategic Communication dan Conflict of Interest itu sendiri.

Berikut sejumlah definisi operasional yg saya gunakan:
“Information ethics explores and evaluates: the development of moral values in the information field, the creation of new power structures in the information field, information myths, hidden contradictions and intentionalities in information theories and practices, the development of ethical conflicts in the information field.” (Capurro, 2005: 7)

“Strategic communication holds power to define issues, interactively create understanding, envision options for solutions, and implement policy at organizational and public policy levels. The ability to construct issues and policy creates a responsibility to communicate ethically. Ethics of strategic communication refers to that which is morally worthy in the communicative context. Right versus wrong communication, furthering an innate good, serving the greater good, and facilitating social discourse are all perspectives that can be used to define morally worthy communication.” (Bowen, 2018)

“Ethics govern and yet are distinct from law. That is, while laws encode values and customs that will be enforced by the power of the state, more generally ethics concern those values and beliefs (whether enforced by law or not) that a society or group or individual believe will most likely create goodness.” (Lipari, 2017)

“Communication ethics concerns the creation and evaluation of goodness in all aspects and manifestations of communicative interaction.” (Lipari, 2017)

“Moral dilemmas are a pervasive feature in organizational life, and the discipline of ethics offers principles, tools, and concepts to analyze them and reach a decision about what to do. A moral dilemma is typically a situation where the decision-maker must choose between two or more options that represent some moral requirement or duty.” (Kvalnes, 2019: 3)

Terkait pemaparan hasil dan rekomendasi, saya menjabarkannya ke dalam 6 slides berikut ini:
(1) Conflict of interests as a moral issue;
(2) Trolley Problem as a classic example of Ethical Dilemma;
(3) Contemporary cases of the “conflict of interest” (mengutip dari Plaisance, 2018: 10-11);
(4) The case of a fat man’s desire to feast on profiteroles (mengutip dari MacIntyre, 2016: 10);
(5) The case of gratification (mengutip dari Roberts, 2021); dan ditutup dengan
(6) “5 approaches to dealing with conflict of interests”

Capurro, R. (2005). Information Ethics. Computer Society of India Communications, 7–10.
Floridi, L. (2013). The Ethics of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuchs, C. (2023). Digital Ethics: Media, communication and society; volume five. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
Ikonen, P., Luoma-aho, V., & Bowen, S. A. (2016). Transparency for Sponsored Content: Analysing Codes of Ethics in Public Relations, Marketing, Advertising and Journalism. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 11(2), 165-178. DOI: 10.1080/1553118X.2016.1252917
Kvalnes, Ø. (2019). Moral Reasoning at Work: Rethinking Ethics in Organizations. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Pivot.
Lipari, L. A. (2017). Communication Ethics. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Published online: 27 February 2017.
MacIntyre, A. (2016). Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity: An Essay on Desire, Practical Reasoning, and Narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Plaisance, P. L. (2018). Defining the Field. In Patrick Lee Plaisance (ed.). Communication and Media Ethics (pp. 1-14). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Roberts, J. (2021). Conflict of Interest. LibreText Social Sciences.

sumber dari internet:


[upcoming publication] Criticizing Female Genital Mutilation Practice from Feminist Standpoint Theory: A View from Communication Science Perspective

Author: Hendar Putranto
Doctoral Program of Communication Sciences, Universitas Indonesia


This conceptual review examines Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) practice in Indonesia viewed from Feminist Standpoint Theory (FST). The current study uses a literature review to build an argumentative contribution from communication science perspective. FGM is a global phenomenon locally and culturally practiced in more than 29 countries, including Indonesia. Despite many state regulations and international treaties forbidding the practice because of its harmful consequences, FGM practice is persistently maintained by religion, culture, tradition, and other factors. The author proposes FST as a theoretical base to criticize FGM because it does not represent the lived experience of women, marginalizes women further to the brink of ideal democratic participation, and does not contribute towards the positive construction of female selfhood. The author will elaborate on these three objections using the communication science perspective within the Indonesian cultural context. The author proposes more action-oriented theorizing to overcome FST’s practical deficiency by providing insights from critical intercultural communication. Women’s collective agency based on situated knowledge will empower their communicative skills as enablers of transformation to eradicate FGM.

see: (will be updated later when the article is officially published in Humaniora)


Menyoal Eksplikasi dari Etika Komunikasi Digital (DCE)

Takeaways from the sharing session of Indonesia Postgraduate Network Seminar Series (IPN) Forum on Wednesday, October 26, 2022, delivered by Hendar Putranto [Ph.D. Candidate in Communication Science, Universitas Indonesia].

The Forum was initially and strategically maintained by Jonathan P Tehusijarana, Ph. D. candidate in History, The University of Melbourne. His research highlights the role of militarised student organizations in the development of post-independence Indonesia.

Here is the flyer for the session:

The opening question:
Is ethics merely passing judgment towards others regarding their so-called observable behavior? In some sense, yes, because, by passing judgment, ethicists clear the fog of ignorance and the veil of concomitant worries and pressing concerns of fellow human beings. Therefore, we need to address and redefine the principles of ethics in the digital milieu, or, in short, DCE–Digital Communication Ethics.

Are we ready yet?

Here’s the short manifesto of the explication process on the DCE:

Why Redefine? Why not use the old frameworks of Macro-ethics (virtue, deontology, consequentialism)?

1) Zeitgeist: digital era, ICT, disruption, etc.

2) Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures: do we have to choose between awareness/mindfulness, ethics, or positive law? See GDPR in Europe; also Indonesia’s law of Pelindungan Data Pribadi (PDP) ratified on Sept. 20, 2022. This law is similar to GDPR in the European Union. We are still waiting for its implementations and derivative regulations.

3) Old wine in a new bottle: an existing concept or institution offered as though it were a new one. Could it be the case?

4) Digital Literacy Movement: necessary yes, but is it enough (sufficient)? >> the institutionalization of ethics and the diversity of codes of conduct

5) Digital Ethics is not identical to Communication Ethics: they are similar but different

6) Moral dilemma faced by many academics in (new) Higher Education landscape & challenges >> we need to hold on to something (more) solid in order to move forward with confidence

7) Are you, Hendar, the only one thinking about this?

Nope. See:
a) Prof. Francisco Budi Hardiman in his latest book Aku Klik maka Aku Ada. Manusia dalam Revolusi Digital (Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius, 2021) and was later emphasized in his Professoral Inauguration Speech on Dec. 8, 2021, at UPH. He said that there are three pressing concerns and tasks for Philosophy today, namely (i) to reveal the ambivalence of digital communications; (ii) to continue the ideology critique and rational reflection; and (iii) to provide a systematic and meaningful account of digital communication ethics.

[read some journalistic reportage on his speech here, and here,]

b) Kominfo Republik Indonesia:

c) see the definition of digital ethics as follows, “In an increasingly digital world, it’s important that technology is used to improve and enhance the quality of people’s everyday lives. Embedding ethical principles, such as transparency, accountability, and explainability, into the creation of products, tools and services is essential for building public trust and confidence in technology. techUK focuses on resolving some of the most difficult ethical challenges, to ensure tech works for people and responsible innovation can flourish.”

d) (de Broglie, C., 2016)
Charlotte de Broglie [CEO and Founder, For the Future]

de Broglie says that “There is an intrinsic duality to digital technology. Like the god Janus…It can result in the abuse of the powers of mass surveillance, and threaten democracies…But, equally, it also help liberate oppressed peoples. Digital technology is not neutral. Rather, it enshrines a vision and reflects a worldview…Indeed, technology does not exist outside reality, and that has never been more true than today. As a result, if we underestimate the reach of technology, we could wake up one day in a worldwide technocracy. Yet, and despite this threat, the education of digital thinkers and creators, mathematicians, engineers, computer scientists and so on rarely addresses the ethical issues facing these digital actors, nor their responsibilities. Instead, they are presented with a utilitarian and short-term vision of the digital domain that takes little account of the broader social, economic and cultural background against which digital innovation is happening nor of its impacts. The end result is super-specialist technocrats working in isolation on the research and the development of their applications.”

e) and many many others (citations needed)

I hope this short explication works as a repertoire for many more serious studies on DCE in the future.


Menjadi cendekia sekaligus aktivis sosial: Oxymoron-kah?

Beberapa hari yang lalu saya menerima link di surel kantor untuk membaca artikel yang ditulis oleh Katy Barnett. Judul artikel tersebut, Activist scholarship risks turning the academy into an echo chamber, langsung menarik perhatian saya seketika, sehingga saya sempatkan untuk membacanya sampai selesai.

Bagi sidang pembaca yang tertarik untuk membaca secara langsung dan lengkap artikelnya bisa klik di sini: Yang semakin membuat saya tertarik setelah membaca judulnya adalah membaca mini caption di bawah judul yang berbunyi sbb.: Scholarship that does not acknowledge the legitimacy of alternative views is inimical to knowledge generation, says Katy Barnett.

Belakangan saya baru tahu bahwa Katy Barnett adalah seorang Profesor Ilmu Hukum yang disegani di Australia. Beliau bekerja di Melbourne Law School, yang merupakan sekolah hukum tertua di negara Australia.
Berikut profil singkat beliau:
Beliau juga cukup aktif di Twitter, dengan akun @DrKatyBarnett.

Setelah membaca satu artikel tulisannya tersebut, kemudian menemukan artikel lain yang juga ditulisnya beberapa bulan sebelumnya, yang didanai Heterodox Academy, dengan mengusung tagline sebagai berikut,
“The HxA agenda is: to improve the quality of research and education in universities by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement.”
Project & tulisannya dapat diakses di sini:, saya jadi semakin mengaguminya.

Prof. Barnett adalah seorang cendekia yang penuh gairah mendukung keberagaman dalam lingkungan Pendidikan Tinggi dan tampak jelas bahwa salah satu tujuannya menulis dan memublikasikan tulisannya adalah agar publik (khalayak luas) dapat lebih mudah mengakses tulisan2 akademis (yang bermutu tentu saja).

Saya memahami concern beliau ketika mengatakan bahwa “Activist scholarship undermines the fundamental predicates of academia and creates distrust and division. I don’t care in which direction the particular activist barrow is being pushed – left, right, or another direction entirely. Activism presumes certain knowledge is inherently true and allows no room for dissent. It adopts one side of a debate wholeheartedly, to the point of taking strong actions to support it. The corollary to this, often, is that anything said on the other side of the debate is ridiculous or positively evil. Hence, the opposing view cannot even be mentioned, other than to be derided. Some academics refuse to read material by their intellectual opponents.” Dalam kutipan ini, tonasi maupun konten pemikiran beliau cenderung negatif terhadap yang disebutnya “cendekia-cum-aktivis” dan saya yakin ada sejumlah besar pengalaman beliau yang membentuk konstruksi berpikir, merasa dan berargumen terkait topik ini. Itu sah-sah saja dan baik juga untuk kita, sidang pembaca, periksa dan refleksikan dalam lingkup kehidupan dan konteks profesional kecendekiaan yang Anda dan saya menjadi bagian di dalamnya.

Untuk awalannya, saya memposting komentar atas artikelnya di situsweb timeshighereducation tersebut sbb.:

Dalam komentar ini, saya membandingkan arah pendekatan yang ia lakukan dalam metode pengajaran dan diseminasi pemikiran beliau dengan yang saya alami dan pernah lakukan di puluhan kelas Critical and Creative Thinking yang saya ajar back to 2007-2018 courses.

My short comments run like this: “Thank you, Katy. I remember teaching Critical and Creative Thinking [CCT] courses for undergraduate students, freshmen, some years back. There, I would divide the class into groups and present some selected topics for the other assigned group to challenge the presenter group. Then I’d have marked both the proponent & opponent groups for their 5C points: conciseness, clarity, consistency, critical views & creative problem-solving. They seem happy with the way the CCT materials were delivered in this “debate” manner, making them (more) open-minded and evaluating the argument (their own & opponent’s) with the 5C points, rather than subjective markers of like and dislike. I would heartily recommend this article for my students to read.”

Paragraf penutup artikelnya menegaskan posisinya sbb.: “I do not want to be the academic with whom people agree simply because they fear being scorned or shut out or marked down. I want my colleagues and students to think for themselves, to come up with interesting and different points of view, to challenge me, and for us to learn from each other.” Kalau dibaca sekilas, sepertinya tidak ada yang “salah” dengan penegasan yg beliau sampaikan tersebut, tapi saya agak tersentak ketika membaca frasa “to challenge me.”

Well, persis pada bagian ini, frasa “menantang saya” mungkin akan terasa keras dan pedas jika dibaca oleh sebagian besar Profesor dan Doktor yang mengajar saya (saya seorang mahasiswa S3 di sebuah Universitas negeri terkemuka di negeri ini) maupun sejumlah kolega senior di tempat saya bekerja sekarang.

Mengapa? Dalam iklim akademis di Indonesia (generalisasi, yes) yang masih cenderung feodal dan (to some extent) patriarkis, juga ada kecenderungan utk menegaskan posisi dosen senior di atas dosen junior, tampaknya frasa “to challenge me” ini bukan sesuatu yang sering dijumpai dalam interaksi di ruang2 kelas, apalagi dalam sesi ujian/sidang besar seperti sidang skripsi, tesis maupun disertasi. Selain jarang terjadi, juga cenderung tidak diemulasi atau dieksplisitasi oleh para dosen senior ketika mereka memulai sesi2 perjumpaan ilmiah (misalnya, interaksi di ruang kelas).

Bahkan, kesulitan menemukan pengalaman “to challenge me” dalam konteks kecendekiaan itu juga berlaku pada sejumlah dosen muda (rentang usia 32-45) yang mengajar para mahasiswanya. Artinya, bukan hanya senioritas secara umur dan pengalaman menjadi dosen, tapi juga senioritas dalam arti “perbedaan level pendidikan” yang mana S3 jelas lebih tinggi daripada S2, lulusan S3 dari luar negeri lebih berkasta tinggi daripada S3 lulusan dari dalam negeri, dst dsb. Dalam pencarian kebenaran bersama, a pursuit of knowledge, tidak jarang mahasiswa ditempatkan dan diposisikan sebagai innocent bystanders atau beginner students atau novice researchers yang mentok2nya bertanya hal2 yg teknis saja, bukan untuk mendebat, memproblematisasi proposisi, metodologi, konsep dan teori, apalagi mempertanyakan “sabda kebenaran” yang disampaikan para dosen dengan jenjang pendidikan dan konduite gelar akademis yg lebih tinggi!

Mind you, kejadian ini bukan hanya berlaku utk mahasiswa pada jenjang S1 saja lho yaaa, tapi bahkan berlaku pada mahasiswa di jenjang S3!!

Karenanya, problematika soal “difficulties of speaking out one’s voice and to challenge authority in academia” bukan hanya tantangan bagi sesama cendekia, misalnya antara cendekia aktivis dalam lingkaran pergaulan luas mereka dengan cendekia ivory tower, misalnya, atau cendekia perumus regulations and public-policies, tapi juga dalam lingkar2 yg relatif lebih sempit dan terbatas, misalnya, di dalam ruang kelas, di ruang sidang/ujian, atau di ruang2 diskusi publik.

Mungkin saja iklim kecendekiaan di dunia Barat (Australia masuk ke dalam “belahan Western scholarship bukan?) lebih memberi ruang dan kesempatan untuk melakukan “challenge authority on their presumed knowledge and expertise” dan itu dihargai di sana.

Tapi keberlakuan prinsip “to challenge authority” ini di Indonesia, dalam banyak kasus, bukan hanya satu-dua yang saya alami dan ketahui dari rekan2 yg pernah sharing pengalaman mereka tentang ini ke saya, rasa2nya masih jauh panggang dari api. Coba saja!


Diskusi Panel MFI: Legasi Pemikiran Bruno Latour (1947-2022)


9 Oktober 2022 yang lalu, Bruno Latour meninggal pada usianya yang ke-75 tahun. Sebagai seorang pemikir besar Prancis yang sangat berkontribusi dalam berbagai bidang ilmu sosial humaniora, Latour dikenal sebagai filsuf yang paling tenar sekaligus paling disalahpahami (The New York Times, October 25, 2018).

Dalam diskusi panel ini, Masyarakat Filsafat Indonesia mengundang Anda untuk berbincang seputar ide warisan Bruno Latour bersama sejumlah panelis (Rangga Mahaswa, Risalatul Hukmi, Atolah Yafi, Karunia Haganta, dan Hendar Putranto) yang akan memotret dan menyajikan pemikiran Latour dari empat perspektif:

*1. Latour dan Implikasi Metodologisnya: Dari Materialis ke Multispesies.*
Metode etnografi berbasis antropologi yang dikembangkan Latour mendorongnya untuk melakukan terobosan konseptual sekaligus metodologis yang sifatnya mendobrak kekakuan mazhab pemikiran terdahulu. Sumbangan kebaruan pemikiran Latour pada ilmu sosial juga berdampak pada filsafatnya yang kental dengan pengayaan empiris. Pengaruh Latour terasa dari Webb Keane sampai Eduardo Kohn, dari pendekatan materialitas ke multispesies.

*2. Segregasi Nature dan Culture.*
Bagaimana Modernitas ingin memberi distingsi antara masyarakat dengan alam dan bagaimana distingsi ini kemudian berubah menjadi segregasi yang problematis. Topik ini akan mengeksplorasi karya Latour yang paling populer, We Have Never Been Modern (Nous n’avons jamais été modernes: Essai d’anthropologie symétrique; Edisi bahasa Perancis terbit 1991, terjemahan bahasa Inggris terbit 1993) dan pemikiran-pemikiran turunannya.

*3. Bruno Latour dan Antroposen.*
We Have Never Been Modern (1991) mengawali pergeseran sudut pandang bahwa kategorisasi dalam konstitusi-konfigurasi modern tidak pernah ada. Kerja dunia niscaya selalu berjejaring—saling menopang-membaur (hybrids)—parliament of things, segala sesuatunya saling terhubung. Bukan sekedar armchair philosopher, Latour menyuarakan politik ekologi praksis, bahwa sesungguhnya dunia bergerak dalam jejaring-konstitusi-ekologisasi yang menghimpun kehidupan secara bersamaan. Artinya, terdapat semacam jejaring konstitutif antar manusia (human) dan entitas non-manusia (non-human), seperti halnya things (sampah, objek-ekologis, atmosfer, kereta, polisi tidur,—baik ‘yang dianggap’ alamiah atau artifisial), yang mempengaruhi perspektif Latour tentang krisis iklim dan bahkan diskursus Antroposen. Warisan pemikiran Latour dalam diskursus Antroposen telah melahirkan beberapa gerakan pendekatan filsafat lingkungan, seperti teori jejaring aktan-global, status agensi selama krisis ekologis, multi-instabilitas, antropologi Antroposen, dan bahkan Gaia-Antroposen yang membahas zona kritis (critical zone) bumi-dunia manusia. Segala hal yang berjejaring ini memaksa manusia memikirkan ulang hubungan dirinya dengan entitas yang lebih dari sekedar dirinya, yang hidup dan menghidupi dalam sebuah krisis Antroposen.

*4. Latour dan Political Epistemology.*
Klaim-klaim epistemik pada dasarnya tidak mungkin dipisahkan dari ‘kekuasaan’. Begitu halnya science tidak untuk dipahami sebagai sebuah konsep abstrak (dengan S kapital) tapi sebagai serangkaian praktik yang keberhasilannya bergantung pada pengembangan, pemeliharaan, dan kompleksitas relasi kuasa.

Klik link ini untuk bergabung dalam zoom meeting:

Meeting ID: 987 7513 1396
Passcode: Latour

Kolokium ini diadakan rutin setiap 2 minggu, terbuka untuk umum dan tidak dikenakan biaya.
Narahubung: (Ruth).


Just be ready to prepare for tomorrow’s questions and answers

Yesterday, October 19, 2022, FISIP Universitas Indonesia is lucky to receive the visitation of Mr. Chan Chun Sing, current Singapore’s Minister of Education. The visitation and dialogue took place in Mochtar Riady Hall, FISIP UI. The moderator for the dialogue session is Ms. Dwi Ardhanariswari Sundrijo, S.Sos., M.A., Ph.D., or, familiarly called mbak Riris.

According to Wikipedia (, Chan Chun Sing (Chinese: 陈振声; pinyin: Chén Zhènshēng; born 1969) is a Singaporean politician and former major-general who has been serving as Minister for Education since 2021 and Minister-in-charge of Public Service since 2018.

During 1.5 hours dialogue session with 53 FISIP students coming from 8 departments and three distinct levels (S1, S2 & S3), Mr. Chan eludes a sense of optimism, enriching dialogue, and warmly embraces what tomorrow would bring, namely the “New Normal” of Post-Covid world.

Some of the memorable quotes from his address and responses to FISIP students’ thought-sharing and questions are listed below (not in order of importance, but rather, in chronological order) [modification is added to emphasize, thus, not verbatim quotes):

1) Think about tomorrow’s question with tomorrow’s answer, that’s the key to sustainable success, not only for students but also for Small and medium enterprises (businesses) and for the government.
2) Competition now is not between Indonesia & Singapore. No. It is between Asia (Sing & Indonesia included) with the rest of the world.
3) Remember the Spiderman film and the harrowing scene of Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben’s farewell moment? It is good to re-quote that for UI students and alumni: with those of great abilities come great responsibilities🤭
4) Of course Singaporeans are very small numbers in terms of citizens (less than 6 mil people). Indonesia is bigger than that. It is not a matter of how many people you have in a certain country. China? India? They are a big-population country. Indonesia as well. You, Indonesians, can make a change, not because you lack people, no. Indonesia never lacks a number of people. What matters is the quality of the people to bring the country towards progressive success.
5) On digital learning: Much of the learning can be done online, Singapore does not need to have big buildings and big halls (like here in UI). We tend to develop blended learning. More projects oriented. By changing the way we do things, we double our master program candidates & graduates, not only because of the Covid restrictions but because the opportunity arises).
6) On dealing with the protracted economic recession: Due to the recession, it depends on what you have learned at UI. Whether it would be obsolete in the coming years and whether the threat of unemployment is real.
7) On the power of competition and collaboration for the sake of mental health: It is more important to surpass yourself every day than to surpass someone else’s achievements✌🏼 By surpassing ourselves, we don’t need to always compare with others’ achievements. Thus, creating a safe space for our mental health and well-being.


TikTok, Algoritma Media Sosial dan Candu Baru bagi Gen Z

Pada 22 Agustus yang lalu, pas sedang mengikuti PAWR (baca postingan saya sebelum2nya), saya mendapat kiriman link video dari seorang rekan seangkatan studi di UI, lewat WA (japri).

Berikut link videonya: dan kenampakan skrinsyut-nya

Video tersebut, yang pertama kali di-posting pada 19 Agustus 2022, telah viral dan menjadi perbincangan di antara emak-emak yang punya anak sedang bersekolah di jenjang SD, SMP dan SMA (per 2022) karena “menakutkan prediksinya dan, jika benar terjadi seperti yang diprediksi, menyeramkan dampaknya buat anak-anak kita.”

Dalam video berdurasi 22 menit 37 detik yang sudah disaksikan lebih dari 700 ribu pemirsa (views), per 9 Oktober 2022, Dr. Indrawan Nugroho mendaku bahwa “TikTok sedang membangun senjata pemusnah massal yang akan meluluhlantakkan para pemain di berbagai industri. TikTok akan merevolusi konstelasi persaingan bisnis di masa depan.” Benarkah klaimnya ini?

Terlepas dari pro kontra truth-value konten yang disampaikan dan kesahihan metodologisnya sehingga pak Indrawan dapat menarik kesimpulan yang bernada seperti memprediksi masa depan (FYI: halo, siapa sih yang hari begini gak tergoda utk memprediksi masa depan?), saya memiliki beberapa catatan kritis maupun afirmatif terhadap video tersebut.

Pertama, saya tidak serta-merta percaya begitu saja apa yang disampaikan pak Indrawan “hanya dengan menonton video tersebut” kemudian menarik kesimpulan serba tergesa yang entah mengiyakan buta maupun menolak mentah-mentah tesisnya. Saya sudah terbiasa dan terlatih untuk melakukan triangulasi pandangan dengan mencari, membaca & meneliti sumber-sumber lain yang membahas topik yang sejenis, khususnya pandangan para pakar [dalam hal ini saya berseberangan dengan tesisnya Tom Nichols dalam bukunya The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters (Oxford University Press, 2017)]. Saya membandingkan klaim utama dalam video tersebut dengan pernyataan seorang ahli psikologi bernama Dr. Julie M. Albright, seorang Profesor di Universitas Southern California (USA) dan penulis buku Left to Their Own Devices: How Digital Natives Are Reshaping the American Dream (2019).

Menurutnya, “Dalam istilah psikologi, keberadaan platform media sosial [seperti Tiktok ini] disebut sebagai random reinforcement. Artinya, terkadang kita menang, kadang kalah. Seperti itulah platform2 media sosial ini didesain…mereka persis seperti mesin judi (slot machine). Yang kita tahu dari mesin judi adalah sifat adiktifnya. Kita juga tahu bahwa ada yang namanya kecanduan berjudi, kan? Tapi jarang kita mendiskusikan tentang bagaimana piranti teknologi yang kita genggam dan berbagai platform/apps yang kita install di dalamnya memiliki kualitas adiktif yang sama seperti mesin judi tadi.” [dikutip berdasarkan wawancara yang dilakukan kontributor senior, John Koetsier, dengan Dr. Julie M. Albright yang dimuat di majalah bisnis terkemuka, FORBES, pada 18 Jan. 2020 lalu. Judul artikelnya lumayan provokatif! Digital Crack Cocaine: The Science Behind TikTok’s Success. Link beritanya di sini:]

Kedua, saya mengobservasi dan kemudian berasumsi bahwa orang-orang muda yang dibesarkan dengan Internet, telepon pintar, dan media sosial dengan cepat mengubah kebiasaan, nilai, perilaku, dan norma lama menjadi kenangan yang jauh—menciptakan kesenjangan generasi terbesar dalam sejarah. Dalam buku Left to Their Own Devices ini, Albright dengan jeli melihat sejumlah cara yang di dalamnya orang-orang muda, yang difasilitasi oleh teknologi, “tidak terikat” dari aspirasi dan cita-cita tradisional, dan lalu bertanya: Apa efek dari terputusnya hubungan dari gugus tradisional yang sifatnya menstabilkan struktur sosial seperti gereja, pernikahan, partai politik, dan pekerjaan jangka panjang? Apa artinya menjadi manusia ketika ikatan seseorang dengan orang, tempat, pekerjaan, dan institusi sosial melemah atau rusak, tergeser oleh hiperkonektivitas digital? Bagaimana seyogianya gagasan tentang menjadi manusia yang terhubung secara digital (lewat media sosial, misalnya) sekaligus terhubung secara tradisional (lewat perjumpaan dan interaksi tatap muka, misalnya)? Apa plus minus-nya?

Ketiga, saya mengapresiasi pandangan yang disampaikan Prof. Albright dan juga video yang di-posting pak Indrawan tadi guna memahami fenomena saturasi media sosial dalam hidup sehari-hari, khususnya betapa media sosial itu begitu besar dampaknya untuk mengubah bukan hanya cara pandang, tapi juga cara mengada Gen. Z (dan generasi berikutnya), seperti yang cukup sering digosipin oleh sebagian besar emak-emak penjemput anak di sekolah dan yang acapkali memunculkan rasa khawatir yang akut dalam diri kaum cerdik-cendekia dan para penjaga moral masyarakat bahwa, jika tidak diintervensi secara tegas dan proper, anak2 kita akan “rusak kepribadiannya” karena bentukan apps seperti TikTok dan cara MENGADA, termasuk di dalamnya cara berbahasa dan berinteraksi dengan orang lain, yang selalu terhubung secara digital (always on).

Cf: Dua buku berikut ini, (1) Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World (Naomi S. Baron, 2008) dan (2) Always On: Hope and Fear in the Social Smartphone Era (Rory Cellan-Jones, 2021)

to be continued with
The Negative Impact of Social Media on Youth Mental Health: Do we have to really worry about this?
in my next post.


Post-Covid Friendship: More Loneliness or More Interconnectedness?

For the last few days, I’ve been thinking about the meaning of friendship, before, during, and after the Covid-19 era. Some insights come from the television series I’ve been watching on Netflix (Never Have I Ever and Fate: The Winx Saga), some come from books (one of them I will post below), and mostly from my own experience and what some people tell me about their own experiences on friendship.

My first big assumption is that people will get lonely when they are isolated (forced isolation for sure due to virus contraction, fear of being infected, and because of the government’s restriction on mobility) and kept their face-to-face interaction at a very minimum level.

But here, after reading this book, Friendship in The Age of Loneliness: An Optimist’s Guide to Connection, authored by Adam Smiley Poswolsky, and Published by Running Press [an imprint of Perseus Books, LLC, a subsidiary of Hachette Book Group, Inc.; first edition May 2021]

especially referring to these three quotations:

1) “Being forced into isolation has made it abundantly clear how much we mean to each other, and how much we need each other,” observed Kat Vellos, friendship expert and author of We Should Get Together. “People are reaching out and offering support to each other in ways that would never have just spontaneously happened while everyone was rushing around living their normal lives. What is emerging now are: openness, generosity, slowing down, valuing each other, and valuing life.”

2) The pandemic demonstrated the true power of friendship to sustain us through everything life throws at us. We bore witness to why human interaction is essential to our health and well-being. During quarantine, I often heard people say, “I see more of my friends’ faces now than before quarantine. We really should have these reunions more often when non-Zoom life resumes.”

3) Contrary to expectations that COVID-19 would make us even lonelier, a comprehensive study published in the journal American Psychologist actually found that social distancing protocols and stay-at-home orders did not lead to an increase in loneliness among Americans. Researchers found resilience, not loneliness, in their nationwide research. “Contrary to this fear, we found that overall loneliness did not increase,” said Martina Luchetti, an assistant professor at the Florida State University College of Medicine and lead author of the study. “Instead, people felt more supported by others than before the pandemic. Even while physically isolated, the feeling of increased social support and of being in this together may help limit increases in loneliness.” The legacy of COVID-19 will certainly include an incalculable loss of human life, a strain on public health, widespread economic hardship, and an awakening to the deep structural inequalities in our society. However, I’m hopeful that this time will also serve as a reminder of what matters most: our interconnectedness. That we can’t afford to take our people or our planet for granted. That our existence is not guaranteed. That we won’t survive without looking out for one another.

I come to realize some insightful ideas on friendship as I am living up to today.

My own commentary on the above quotations runs as simple as this:
Now, when we are no longer shrouded in fear of getting Covid and dying instantly, thanks to vaccines and many other shields we got about how to deal with the virus, the “call for WFO” speaks louder than our lame excuse on staying WFH, do we get back to our old habits of “bossing around,” always in a hurry and seemingly out of reach (sok sibuk), toying around with the instrumental reason (friends with benefits and friends incurring loss) when interacting with and treating our friends, and stick to budget and own plan rather than generously sharing our time and optimism with others less fortunate?

My suggestion is this: Let’s keep the Covid-bonding-friendship experience alive!


[Sharing Session] Academic Writing and Manuscript Publication in Sinta 2-indexed journal


1. Pada 19 September 2022, lewat WA japri, saya diundang oleh dosen pengampu Mata Kuliah Seminar Proposal di Program Studi Magister Ilmu Komunikasi FIKOM-UMN, Dr. Bherta Sri Eko, untuk mengisi salah satu sesi perkuliahan yang beliau ampu dengan topik “penulisan jurnal ilmiah.” Beliau sendiri sudah lama mengenal saya karena kami bersahabat baik dan sering melakukan kolaborasi riset, penulisan artikel jurnal maupun buku ajar.

2. Belum lama, tepatnya pada 23 September 2022, saya menerima surat LoA (Letter of Acceptance) dari Editor jurnal Humaniora, UGM, untuk manuskrip yang sudah lama saya submit ke jurnal tersebut. [see:] Manuskrip yang saya tulis tersebut berjudul “Criticizing Female Genital Mutilation Practice from Feminist Standpoint Theory: A View from Communication Science Perspective.” LoA ini akhirnya saya terima setelah berproses selama kurleb 1 tahun 3 bulan sejak saya terseleksi (bersama 41 partisipan lainnya) untuk mengikuti workshop penulisan naskah untuk submisi ke Jurnal Humaniora yang diadakan pada 17 Juni 2021 dan yang berujung pada submit draf pertama naskahnya pada 30 Juli 2021 pukul 17.32 WIB.

3. Bagi saya pribadi, inilah pengalaman pertama saya: a) membuat naskah conceptual review (bukan field research & original article), b) naskahnya dinyatakan layak terbit (“Accepted”) oleh Editor jurnal terindeks Sinta 2 dan DOAJ (!), c) mengolah paper UAS MatKul pas dulu Program matrikulasi yang tembus ke jurnal bereputasi nasional & internasional, d) makan waktu selama ini (more than 1 calendar year!) untuk menjalani proses penerbitan sebuah naskah, e) sharing success story tentang penulisan artikel ilmiah dan tahapan publikasinya dalam sebuah sesi perkuliahan untuk mahasiswa level S2.

4) Lessons to learn: don’t underestimate your exam-oriented paper. One day, it might be your life-saver & image-booster; it is hard to reduce the number of words to comply with the word-limitation rule of the journal, but harder still to beat your ego when doing this; don’t get your hopes up too high [to be approved by the reviewers] when offering “theoretical contribution” in your manuscript’s title; I have to maintain my emotional health and sanity amidst waves of revisions by consulting my trusted colleagues on the subject-matter.

All in all, I am proud of the grit I have properly shown during the review process and the bliss I experience when sharing this fabulous story of grit with young master program students. Hope they get inspired and brave themselves to do the research, write their own manuscripts and SUBMIT!