On Becoming morally supportive for visible-college fellow Doctoral students

Beberapa bulan terakhir ini, biasanya dalam setahun ada dua periode “sibuk sidang” yaitu Mei-Juni dan Desember-Januari, ada satu kegiatan yang rutin saya lakukan dalam rangka self-enhancement sekaligus becoming morally supportive for fellow Doctoral students in Communication science, yaitu menghadiri sidang hasil penelitian (biasa disebut SHP) dan sidang promosi dari kakak tingkat (Angkatan 2016-2018), juga rekan seangkatan, Mbak RDP pada Mei 2022 lalu.

Mindfully aware of the consequences of attending the activities, both their upsides, and downsides, I come to observe some interesting phenomena and for these, I take some notes. Hopefully, these notes will be of interest to you who are currently enrolled as Doctoral students in Comm science or social science in general, or those who would be applying to attend one any time soon.

The upsides are listed below:
1) self-enhancement in terms of preparing myself to be examined as such in the near future, knowing in depth and in detail about some characteristics of the questions typically addressed to Promovendus, some pitfalls usually be given a warning (such as the incoherence of paragraphs and ideas; some pabalieut or messiness of arguments’ construction; lack of convincing data and data-types; etc.), and, luckily, some insights coming from the so-called examiners-as-experts.
2) becoming morally supportive of my fellow doctoral students to the point of they feel not left behind unnoticed, or, in a more positive tone, being appreciated for the hard work they have given in composing the dissertation reports and the possible novelty they offer to the body of knowledge proper.
3) in a rare moment of eureka, the philosophical wonder of wisdom, the thaumazein, erupts to the surface of my consciousness and takes hold of bridging the hitherto impossible thinking beyond imagination to the realm of measured ideas and tentative concepts. The differences in topics and methods do not obstruct the way the passionate pursuit of knowledge shown by my fellow colleagues (“the act of performativity”) reverberates and unlocks some confusion previously entrenched in my own locker of mind. Thinking in a similar “fate” and situation means venturing beyond the impassable to the familiar terrain to walk.
4) do ut des: when I give you mine, I hope in the near future you will give me yours (attention, help, etc.) Of course, the disappointment is there lurking in the shadow of “being forgotten” but at least the law of attraction still works for some.

The Downsides are not many but there are some, indeed:
1) the unbearable feeling of being tortured with scathing reviews and childlike treatment addressed to the promovendus sometimes seeps into the innermost feeling (the unconscious one, eh?) of myself as a spectator, fostering a suppressed feeling of built-up insecurity. This feeling would sway the solid foundation of having knowledge of the subject matter being researched and, to some extent, would corrode mental health and well-being.
2) lacking self-confidence would be contagious if no proper shield is prepared in advance.

Hopefully, these reflections would be beneficial for deepening your (our) understanding of the crux of the matter 😀


Minggu, 1 Jan 2023: Selamat Tahun Baru 2023. Kuy jaga mental health!

Seperti inikah bentuk “perayaan” tahun barumu?

forget the past? really? why should you?

atau ini?

Penting juga utk memulai tahun baru dengan a small festive with nuclear family, to boost your spirit for the 365 days ahead

Tapi mungkin sedikit dari kita yg memilih utk melihat gambar ini dan merenungkannya dalam2: what does it take to enable me to reach the same destination as theirs? Living a long and (seemingly) happy life?

Dalam refleksi saya, perayaan tahun Baru berarti menegaskan komitmen akan pentingnya dan mengartikulasikan kembali resolusi utk menjaga kewarasan berpikir dan bertutur, serta menjaga kesehatan jasmani dan mental: let us enhance a more thorough happiness will you?

The Blue Zones of Happiness: Lessons from the World’s Happiest People karya Dan Buettner (2017) bisa menjadi titik berangkat refleksi yg menarik di awal tahun yg baru. Riset belasan tahun yg dilakukan Buettner, dan sudah menghasilkan beberapa buku seperti The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer From the People Who’ve Lived the Longest; Thrive: Finding Happiness the Blue Zones Way; dan The Blue Zones Solution: Eating and Living Like the World’s Healthiest People, menunjukkan bahwa sejumlah orang di dunia ini, misalnya mereka yang hidup di kota Aalborg di Denmark, negara Singapore, dan wilayah Kartago di negara Kosta Rika, menjalani hidup secara “healthiest, happiest, & most long-lasting lives.”

Hidup yang memuaskan dan membahagiakan dapat didesain bersama dan bukan jatuh dari langit begitu saja. Berdasarkan riset empiris dan pendalamannya secara kualitatif, hidup yang membahagiakan bukanlah hidup yang bergelimang harta atau melulu mengejar cuan dan cuan. Buettner menyebut kawasan yang di dalamnya tinggal orang-orang yang paling bahagia ini sebagai “Blue zones.” Istilah ini merujuk pada daerah-daerah yang, dengan ritual dan desain tertentu untuk menjalani hidup, angka harapan hidup dan rata2 usia orang yang hidup di dalamnya relatif lebih panjang daripada di belahan bumi yg lain.

Kita dapat belajar dari mereka.

Misalnya, berikut saran Buettner (2017) untuk menjalani hidup bahagia seperti yang diamati di Kosta Rika:

1. Develop daily social rituals. Costa Ricans are good at creating happy moments every day, with no need for special occasions. Friends get together to watch soccer, play music, prepare carne asada—barbecue—with family or neighbors, drink beer, and tell lots of jokes.
Lessons: Live close to your friends or make friends of your neighbors. Organize impromptu happy hours, pot lucks, or backyard cookouts. Remember, people are happiest on the days when they socialize five to six hours. Being with others also enhances or prioritizes other activities, such as work, eating, watching TV, or doing housework.

2. Enjoy special “little” days. Women get together with girlfriends once a week to bond, laugh, and gossip on what they call martesitos, miercolitos, or juevecitos—little Tuesdays, little Wednesdays, or little Thursdays. For working women, it’s usually in the early evening. For stay-at-home moms, it’s often midday. Considered “their time,” such get-togethers keep relationships healthy and vibrant.
Lessons: Join a book club, walking club, or Bible study club—or create one. Set up one time a week when you invite over your best, most committed friends. Make it a ritual. Most of us don’t socialize enough to optimize our happiness.

3. Establish a weekly family ritual. Costa Rican families traditionally gather for meals on Saturdays or Sundays. They might get together for a late lunch, after which the kids will peel off to play while adults loll around the table for conversation. Or people might come early for Sunday dinner and stay late. The key is that they include grandparents, parents, sons, daughters, in-laws, cousins, and close family friends—so the conversations are intergenerational, lively, and often laced with humor.
Lessons: Set up a weekly family dinner and invite your extended family. If you don’t have many relatives nearby or if your family is boring, invite friends who will make the dinner interesting. Cook good food, be a good host, and make it fun so people will come back. A strongly connected family can serve as not only a social network but also a safety net for when times get tough.

4. Eat together at work. At the Cartago Market, vendors close their stands at noon to gather around La Marisquería, a seafood restaurant, to enjoy the famous fish soup, rice, and beans. There they blend shop talk, family news, soccer stories, and jokes. These guys are not only refueling their bodies but also their souls.
Lessons: Resist the temptation to eat at your desk. Invite your co-workers out to lunch or organize a brown bag group. Talk to your employer about a company policy that favors co-workers eating together.

5. Try a daily dose of humor. Although Costa Ricans suffer the same hardships as the rest of us, they use humor to get by. When news about a corrupt politician makes people angry, social media erupts in jokes within minutes.
Lessons: Read the comics as well as the op-ed pages. Watch a funny video on Facebook or YouTube. It can reduce stress as effectively as 20 minutes on a treadmill—and lift your spirits.

6. Practice your faith. The vast majority of Costa Ricans are Roman Catholics, especially in Cartago, which is home to the Virgen de los Angeles, the country’s patron saint. Locals will tell you that their faith provides them with a sense of purpose and helps to ease the impact of life’s hardships. For many, weekly mass is a chance to downshift and shed stress. Their best friends are church friends.
Lessons: If you have a religion, practice it. If you don’t, try out a few places of worship to see if any resonate with you.

7. Eat six servings of fruits and vegetables a day. The Cartago market glistens with fruits and vegetables, from papayas and mangoes to beets, cabbage, and yucca. Produce is fresh, cheap, delicious, and accessible year-round—a daily source of nutrition and pleasure.
Lessons: Eat at least six servings of fruits and vegetables daily. Not only will this improve your health, it will also boost your happiness. Research shows that people who go from no fruit or produce in their diets to eight servings a day experienced a bump in their well-being equivalent to getting a new job.

8. Shop for groceries daily. People don’t sit around in Cartago, waiting for Amazon to deliver their groceries. Most people walk to the market daily, where they exchange gossip and pleasantries with their favorite vendors and friends, returning home with the freshest foods possible.
Lessons: Get your daily fix of social interaction, physical activity, and fresh produce by walking to your local grocery store. All three of these are ingredients for day-by-day happiness.

9. Embrace generosity. Costa Ricans have a saying, Dios se lo paga, which means that what you give in this life, God will pay back in the next. Studies show that generosity pays off, no matter where you live. (Case in point: Researchers at the University of Oregon found that when they gave people $100, participants were happier when they gave it away than when they spent it on themselves.)
Lessons: Most of us will die with money, so share it now. Be the first to pick up the check at meals, give to charity, and overtip.

10. Boost happiness in the workplace: the Cartago Code. The 120 or so vendors at the central produce market in Cartago observe an unspoken code of conduct that makes for not only good business but also a happy workplace. These men and women spend their careers selling specialty produce—often right next to a stall selling the exact same thing, and they all abide by these implicit rules.

Akhirul kata, saran sederhana berikut merangkum hal2 yg dianggap dapat meningkatkan kebahagiaan individual (warga negara) dan kualitas pengambilan keputusan oleh para pemimpin komunitas, bangsa dan negara:
“Something to do, someone to love, something to give, and something to look forward to.”


Refleksi 2022, Proyeksi 2023: Penyingkapan dan Pemaknaan

Sidang Pembaca yang budiman dan reflektif,

Hidup yang tidak direfleksikan adalah hidup yang tidak pantas dijalani, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Betapa sering ujar-ujar bijak yang dikutip dari Sokrates di muka pengadilan Yunani klasik ini menjadi salah satu entry point bagi kita untuk merenungkan perjalanan hidup yang sudah dilalui dan memandang ke depan untuk proyeksi keberlanjutan hidup seterusnya.

Ziarah batin yang kaya dan mendalam atas gugus pengalaman yang sudah dilalui mungkin bagus juga jika dibingkai dengan suatu pola yang mudah diingat, dipahami dan ditiru, misalnya:

Menutup tahun 2022 dan menyambut 2023 dengan sebuah pola matematika lima bilangan prima pertama: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11

DUA, maksudnya adalah two game changers:
1) Covid-19 [vaksin, tertular, isoman, bergejala, sembuh, survivor] &
2) Disertasi [topic, process, promotor co-prom, research partners, presenting ideas & intellectual repertoire], periode Januari – Desember 2022

TIGA, maksudnya adalah three things to be most grateful for the year 2022: Family, Friendship, & Public engagement.

LIMA, maksudnya bukanlah lima hal yang disesali telah terjadi, tapi lebih ke lima hal yang dirasa masih ada ruang untuk berkembang karena selama setahun ini tampaknya masih cukup defisit, contohnya: Focus, Character, research collaboration, reading list & mental health.

TUJUH, maksudnya adalah tujuh hal yang mau dikejar sebagai resolusi di tahun yang baru (2023), misalnya:
1) well-being (bodily and mental health)
2) dissertation (complete)
3) new research collaboration and new partners in writing journal articles
4) house renovation
5) severe ties (from toxic ones), fix broken links (seeking redemption) & maintain already good relationships,
6) interdisciplinary public engagement & becoming a recognized public intellectual [via many institutions and organizations I that closely affiliated to]
7) financial security through investment


SEBELAS, artinya sebelas hal yang benar-benar harus disiapkan secara teknis, materiil, maupun mental (misalnya dalam hidup keprofesionalan) di tahun yang akan segera datang, contohnya:
*) menyiapkan sidang hasil penelitian pada Februari/Maret(SHP 1) dan Mei (SHP 2) dilanjutkan dengan sidang promosi pada Juni
**) menulis di blog rutin minimal seminggu dua kali: diseminasi gagasan & networking (target hasil: minimal 100 tulisan pendek 300-500 kata per postingan) lalu disambungkan postingannya dengan akun LinkedIn saya.

Akhirul kata, sebagaimana kalender lama disobek dan disimpan (atau dibuang?) lembarannya dan kalender yang baru dibuka/disingkap lembarannya, [lihat gambar di bawah]

maka “Lingua universalis” yang kaya makna dan lapis-lapis penyingkapan jati-diri dan jati-semestaarti seyogianya tidak diboroskan hanya dengan gemebyar luar pesta-pesti minim arti dan hanya menambah perih hati ketika gugus citra itu kemudian pergi berlari nyaris tidak ada yang terpatri di dalam budi.

Mari kita untaikan “Sampai jumpa 2022, auf wiedersehen & Selamat datang, bienvenue 2023!”


Panen Produksi Pengetahuan menjelang Tutup Tahun 2022

Sidang pembaca blog yang saya dampingi,

Terbitnya dua artikel berikut ini diharapkan dapat memperkaya diskursus perubahan sosial, terkhusus dalam rumpun keilmuan Komunikasi dan Interdisiplinernya semisal Komunikasi Antarbudaya, Etnografi Komunikasi Kritis, Feminisme dan Gender, Komunikasi Gender, dan Women’s Empowerment.

Bagi penulis yang sudah berproses selama belasan bulan untuk mengolah manuskrip yang akhirnya dimuat di jurnal Humaniora, vol. 34(2), persisnya sejak mengikuti lokakarya saringan naskah pada 17 Juli 2021 sampai dengan terbit resminya naskah ini di situs web jurnal Humaniora pada 20 Des. 2022 yang lalu,


8 bulan untuk manuskrip yang dimuat di RJIC, bertepatan dengan perayaan Hari Ibu/Gerakan Perempuan di Indonesia pada 22 Des. 2022,

membutuhkan bukan hanya grit (kegigihan) tapi juga kecermatan dalam memeriksa kembali naskah yang sudah dikembalikan (dengan komentar dan masukan) oleh reviewer dan kerjasama yang apik dengan rekan penulis untuk naskah kolaboratif yang dimuat di RJIC, khususnya penulis pertama yang jadi mentor saya, ibu Dr. Bherta Sri Eko.

Ini adalah sebuah pencapaian yang layak dibanggakan, meskipun mungkin rasa bangganya akan berlalu dalam beberapa bulan ke depan, tapi legasi tertulisnya dan tumpahan idenya dapat terus hidup dan dicatat (syukur-syukur kalau dikritik, dikutip, disanggah, dimodifikasi, dst.) oleh generasi cendekia yang akan datang, saat (para) penulis karya ini sudah tiada dan tidak lagi dapat merespon masukan yang ada dan berkembang secara langsung.

Bagi kaum nyinyir di luar sana yang kesenengannya hanya nggosipin tingkah perilaku orang ataupun mager menghanyutkan diri dalam tindak konsumtif hiburan maupun hedonis (belanja daring, misalnya), yang mencemooh jalan sunyi yang kudu dilalui kaum cerdik cendekia untuk sampai pada produksi pengetahuan yang berkualitas, atau mengabaikan keberadaan kami karena tampaknya kami lebih sering disengaged dari “kenyataan” alih-alih imersif dalam “perayaan nan riuh-rendah,” mari kita saling menghormati dan mengakui ko-eksistensi dua atau tiga cara mengada yang tidak selalu berkelindan dengan santai/santuy nya. Moga-moga pengalaman berbeda yang kita jalani ini dapat saling memperkaya dan memperdalam cakrawala kecendekiaan yang ada alih-alih tumpuk sambyuk ala reduktif absurditis.

Akhirul kata, semoga terlihat jejak kebenaran dari kutipan psikolog besar Carl Jung berikut ini “What we see is blossom, which passes. The rhizome remains.” (Carl Jung, Memoirs, Dreams, Reflections, 1965, h. 4) dalam memahami dan memberi makna pada yang berlalu (the passing) dan yang tinggal menetap (the remains).


Hendar Putranto

Tanggapan dari sidang pembaca untuk manuskrip “Criticizing Female Genital Mutilation Practice…”
“Selamat sore pak Hendar.
Sebelumnya proficiat atas terbitnya jurnal pak Hendar dan saya sangat berterima kasih telah berkenan berbagi tulisan yang sangat bernas lagi inspiratif ini.
Jujur saya merasa ngeri dan miris dengan mereka yang menjadi korban kebiadaban orang-2 terdekat mereka spt keluarga dan masyarakat yg mendukung budaya seperti itu.
Berlebihankah bahwa alasan-2 religius dan “bermoral” untuk melanggengkan tirani dari hierarki itu justru merupakan “pembunuhan” paling manusiawi atau setidaknya “paling benar” untuk diwariskan?
Well, memang sih mungkin ngga sampe membunuh physically orang itu, tetapi ia telah membunuh “separuh” martabatnya di masa mendatang dengan tunduk pada dominasi patriarki dan religi yang sebenarnya sudah tidak murni.
Meski begitu, memang, sebenarnya letak kesalahan juga gak sepenuhnya di pundak laki-2 aja sih.
Bukan juga melulu agama meski dia salah satu fondasi paling toxic untuk melegitimasi hal-2 semacam gini.
Seperti halnya sejarah dari FST, fenomena ini menantang para perempuan, atau lebih luas lagi masyarakat untuk menggunakan pikirannya. Karena “opposing all forms of domination” baru dimungkinkan kalau orang mulai berpikir.
Dan memang itulah tugas filsafat, yakni memperingatkan atau setidaknya berteriak “tidak” di tengah-2 mereka yang bersuara “ya”.
Tulisan ini sangat edukatif dan inspiratif bagi semua, utamanya bagi kaum perempuan untuk mematahkan atau setidaknya menunda pelanggengan kekeliruan atau kecacatan berpikir.
Semangat menulis untuk pak Hendar, kiranya Tuhan memberkati dengan hikmat-Nya dan diberkati pengabdiannya sebagai dosen, penulis, untuk mencerdaskan anak bangsa dan membebaskan mereka dari jerat dogmatik serta mencipta budaya yang lebih rasional, adil, dan manusiawi.
Tentang saran dari saya pak, tulisan ini dikemas dalam bahasa yang lebih sederhana untuk kemudian dimuat di media yang mudah dijangkau masyarakat umum dan awam, karena kan target dari tulisan ini adalah mereka bukan?
Supaya tulisan ini tidak hanya berhenti sebagai arsip keilmuan, lebih dari itu ialah benar-benar mencipta perubahan dalam masyarakat, dalam hal pandangan mereka terhadap agama, budaya, kebiasaan, tradisi.
Tuhan memberkati ✨”
[Jessica-Chan, Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum UNNES, Penggiat Filsafat di komunitas Masyarakat Filsafat Indonesia dan beberapa komunitas filsafat lainnya]


[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.