Mengkaji Ruang Publik dari Perspektif Kuasa: Fenomena Kemenangan Aktor Hegemonik Melalui Dominasi Budaya

Erisandi Arditama

Abstract


Public sphere is not an open space without power, but intersection of various actors with their interest. Therefore, by taking study on meronda activity in gardu, this article discusses how power works in public sphere. Gramsci notion on hegemony is used to analyze existing power relation. As closing session, this article claims that efforts to affecting public opinion through culture domination becomes the basis of hegemonic actor victory in influencing power in gardu as pubic sphere.

Keywords


Public Sphere; Gardu; Hegemony

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arditama, E. (2013). Mereformasi Birokrasi dari Perspektif Sosio-Kultural: Inspirasi dari Kota Yogyakarta. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 17(1), 85-100.

Arendt, H. (2013). The human condition. University of Chicago Press.

Benda, H. J., & Feith, H. (1964). Democracy in Indonesia.

Charles Taylor. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press.

Dwipayana, A. A. (2004). Bangsawan dan kuasa: kembalinya para ningrat di dua kota. Institute for Research and Empowerment.

Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social text, (25/26), 56-80.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Mit Press.

Habermas, J. (2010). Ruang publik: sebuah kajian, tentang kategori, masyarakat borjuis. Balesastra Pustaka.

Hardiman, F. B. (2009). Demokrasi deliberatif: menimbang negara hukum dan ruang publik dalam teori diskursus Jurgen Habermas. Kanisius.

Hardiman, F. B. (2009). Demokrasi deliberatif: menimbang negara hukum dan ruang publik dalam teori diskursus Jurgen Habermas. Kanisius.

Jones, P. (2009). Pengantar teori-teori sosial: dari teori fungsionalisme hingga post-modernisme. Yayasan Obor Indonesia.

Keane, J. (2000). Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere dalam Kenneth L. Hacker dan Jan Van Dick (Eds.). Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

King, D. Y. (1982). Indonesia's New Order as a Bureaucratic Polity, a Neopatrimonial Regime or a Bureaucratic Authoritarian Regime: What Difference Does It Make?. Interpreting Indonesian politics: Thirteen contributions to the debate, 62, 104-16.

Koentjaraningrat. (1974). Kebudayaan, mentalitet, dan pembangunan: bungarampai. Gramedia.

Kusno, A., Utama, C., & Nazir, M. (2007). Penjaga memori: gardu di perkotaan Jawa. Ombak.

Lofland, L. H. (1998). The public realm: Exploring the city's quintessential social territory. Transaction Publishers.

McVey, R. (1982). The Beamtenstaat in Indonesia. Interpreting Indonesian politics: Thirteen contributions to the debate, 84-91.

O'G, A. B. (1972). The idea of power in Javanese culture. Culture and Politics in Indonesia, 1-69.

Prasetyo, A. G. (2012). Menuju Demokrasi Rasional: Melacak Pemikiran Jrgen Habermas tentang Ruang Publik. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 16(2), 169-185.

Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

Soemardjan, S. (1991). Perubahan Sosial. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.

Sudibyo, Agus, dkk. (2005). Republik Tanpa Ruang Publik. Yogyakarta: IRE Press.

Sutherland, H., & Sunarto. (1983). Terbentuknya sebuah elite birokrasi. Sinar Harapan.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/jpi.v1i1.9181

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2016 Politik Indonesia: Indonesian Political Science Review

License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/