Tag Archive for: sejarah komunikasi

pampam

A Missing Studies on Communication Science

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Forum Forum Amir Effendi Siregar # 13 this time 9 October 2020 is not as usual. Presenting Indonesian speakers who were studying in America made the discussion this time take time at night. This time, Rianne Subijanto, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Baruch College, City University of New York was the speaker at the AES Forum discussion tonight. He reveals the history of communication and discovers a time when a part of the study in communication was missing.

According to Rianne, in communication, there is a missing study. This study seems invisible. It seems that if we examine it today, there is even a lot of debate because it is considered not a communication domain anymore.

Rianne’s discussion raised the topic “Communication as Social Networks and Transportation: Historical Studies Past and Present.” Transportation which is part of communication studies is no longer initiated in many researches in the realm of communication.

Judging from the long history of communication, “communication studies have emerged. it’s only limited to communication that mediates new media such as print media, radio, television, and the internet, “said Rianne.

Communication System: Ancient Objects to Print Media

Riane continued that the age of media starting from printed media is still very young. and to be examined from the history, the practice of this communication age is very old. there was writing hieroglief and cuneiform written on slabs of brick in the civilization of mesopotamia. there paprirus, and there are pictures in the cave in the rock.

it is seen that the ancient objects that not only belongs to history, but also there is a communication process. Even communication is not only seen from the printed medium sec material fig. But more basic. Communication is also a process of exchanging meaning through oral, gestures, and facial expressions.

What is missing in Communication studies in Rianne’s view? He sees communication as transmission (transportation) and culture (ritual). If communication is seen from an exchange of meanings, then there is social exchange, there is cultural acculturation too. If seen from here communication is also chained by transportation. In ancient times people traveled by camel or donkey to trade. “And it turns out that there is a cultural exchange of the spread of Islam, cultural acculturation,” said Rianne.

Communication systems should be seen as transport networks and social networks as concepts. “However, now if we want to see transportation in communication studies, maybe people will ask geography or sociology first,” said Rianne.

 

pampam

Kajian Komunikasi Yang Hilang

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Forum Forum Amir Effendi Siregar #13 kali ini 9 Oktober 2020 tak seperti biasa. Menghadirkan pembicara Indonesia yang sedang studi di Amerika membuat diskusi kali ini mengambil waktu di malam hari. Kali ini, Rianne Subijanto, Assistant Professor Kajian Komunikasi di Baruch College, City University of New York menjadi pembicara dalam diskusi Forum AES malam ini. Ia mengungkap sejarah komunikasi dan menemukan satu waktu dimana ada bagian kajian dalam komunikasi hilang.

Menurut Rianne, dalam komunikasi, ada kajian yang hilang. Kajian ini seperti tidak terlihat. Tampaknya jika dikaji di jaman sekarang bahkan, banyak perdebatan karena dianggap bukan ranah komunikasi lagi.

Diskusi Rianne ini mengangkat topik ‘Komunikasi sebagai Jaringan Sosial dan Transportasi: Kajian Sejarah Dulu dan Sekarang.” Transportasi yang menjadi bagian dari kajian komunikasi tak lagi digagas dalam banyak riset di ranah komunikasi.

Dilihat dari sejarah komunikasi yang panjang, “kajian komunikasi yang banyak muncul baru sebatas komunikasi yang memerantarai medium baru seperti media cetak, radio, televisi, maupun internet,” ujar Rianne.

Sistem Komunikasi: Benda-benda Kuno hingga Media Cetak

Riane melanjutkan bahwa umur media mulai dari media cetak (printed media) ini masih sangat muda. Padahal kalau mau ditelisik dari sejarahnya, praktik komunikasi ini umurnya sangat tua. Ada tulisan hieroglief dan kuneiform yang tertulis di lempengan batu bata di peradaban mesopotamia. Ada paprirus, dan ada gambar di gua pada dalam batu.

Di sini terlihat bahwa benda-benda kuno itu tak hanya milik sejarah, tapi juga ada proses komunikasi. Bahkan komunikasi tak hanya dilihat dari medium tercetak secara materil. Namun lebih mendasar. Komunikasi juga adalah proses pertukaran makna lewat oral, gestur, dan mimik muka.

Apa yang hilang di kajian Komunikasi dalam pandangan Rianne? Ia melihat komunikasi sebagai tranmisi (transportasi) dan budaya (ritual). Jika komunikasi dilihat dari adanya pertukaran makna, maka ada pertukaran sosial, ada akulturasi budaya juga. Jika dilihat dari sini komunikasi juga diperantai oleh transportasi. Jaman dahulu orang melakukan perjalanan dengan menggunakan unta atau keledai untuk berdagang. “dan ternyata ada pertukaran budaya penyebaran islam, akulturasi budaya,” papar Rianne.

Sistem komunikasi harus dilihat sebagai jaringan transportasi (transport network) dan jaringan sosial (social networks) sebagai konsep. “Namun, sekarang jika kita mau melihat transportasi dalam kajian komunikasi mungkin orang akan nyuruh ke geografi atau sosiologi dulu,” kata Rianne.

pampam
,

Forum Amir Effendi Siregar Komunikasi UII #14: Hoedjin Tjamboek Berdoeri: Sejarah Mikro sebagai Pendekatan Membaca Koran

Reading Time: < 1 minute
0Days0Hours

Forum Amir Effendi Siregar – Program Studi Ilmu Komunikasi Universitas Islam Indonesia menggelar:

Serial Bincang Sejarah Komunikasi (Sesi 14)

Topik:

Hoedjin Tjamboek Berdoeri: Sejarah Mikro sebagai Pendekatan Membaca Koran

Pembicara:

Eunike Gloria Setiadarma

Sedang menempuh studi doktoral di Departemen Sejarah di Northwestern University. Tertarik meneliti sejarah intelektual dan sejarah sosial pembangunan. Sebelumnya memperoleh pendidikan master Pembangunan Internasional dari University of Manchester.

Jadwal:
Jumat, 17 Oktober 2020
Pukul 09:30 WIB
Via Zoom

atau

Tonton di Uniicoms TV

Registrasi:

Daftar di sini

pampam

Forum AES #11: Komunikasi sebagai Jaringan Sosial dan Transportasi: Kajian Sejarah Komunikasi Dulu dan Sekarang (bersama Rianne Subijanto)

Reading Time: < 1 minute
0Days0Hours

Forum Amir Effendi Siregar – Program Studi Ilmu Komunikasi Universitas Islam Indonesia menggelar

Serial Bincang Sejarah Komunikasi (Sesi 11)

Topik:

Komunikasi sebagai Jaringan Sosial dan Transportasi: Kajian Sejarah Komunikasi Dulu dan Sekarang

Pembicara:

Rianne Subijanto

Assistant Professor Kajian Komunikasi di Baruch College, City University of New York. Disertasinya memenangkan Honorable Mention AJHA Margaret A. Blanchard Doctoral Dissertation Prize dari The American Journalism Historians Association tahun 2016. Manuskrip bukunya berdasar disertasi tersebut berjudul “Revolutionary Communication: Enlightenment at The Dawn of Indonesia” saat ini sedang dalam review. Berkhidmat sebagai Pemimpin Redaksi IndoPROGRESS.

 

Jadwal:
Jumat, 9 Oktober 2020
Pukul 20:00 WIB
Via Zoom

Registrasi:

Daftar si sini

pampam

Why did the Indonesian military make magazines from 1939 to 1966. 

Reading Time: 2 minutes

 

The magazines affiliated with the military in the 1939-1966 era apparently discussed a lot about military strategy, political concepts, how to organize society, and how the civil service should behave and lead the community.

“But from the content, it can actually be drawn a line about ‘how the military uses the pretext of the Law’ to take power legally,” said Norman Joshua, doctoral student at Northwestern University, speaker at the 12th Exclamation of Amir Effendi Siregar (AES) Forum on Saturday ( 3/10). The discussion, which was held by the UII Communication Science Study Program, was broadcast live on the online TV Uniicoms TV belonging to the Department of Communications Science of UII.

The military-owned media also ran a counter for the Harian Rakyat newspaper which incidentally belonged to the left. “Indeed, at that time each department had a publication. Chakra Vijaya magazine belongs to the Army’s Judiciary Corps. In the 60s, the military did not only talk about threats, or about the military world,” said Norman, “but also about law and its implementation in Indonesia. There are also articles. which discusses who has the right to prosecute and arrest a suspect in an area that is included in a war zone. ”

Apart from discussing military strategy, the military media also talks about politics. “And at that time it looked natural in the dual conception of military functions in Indonesia in the 1966 period,” said Norman, commenting on why military media content did not merely talk about the military world.

Military-owned media is seen very clearly in sharpening its content focus to militarize social conditions. Many matters outside the military’s authority try to be raised and discussed in the military law academy as reflected in the Army’s Chakra Vijaya magazine.

Another example is Yudha Gama magazine from the Ministry of Defense. And the most popular to the old material is the Air Force’s Space magazine. “It was as if they were competing in a ‘battle field of discourse’ with the Harian Rakyat, as we all know there was a debate over the discourse between the military and the PKI (Communist Party) in the 60s,” said Norman.

 

pampam

Kenapa Militer Indonesia Membuat Majalah di tahun 1939 hingga 1966

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Majalah yang berafiliasi dengan militer pada era 1939-1966 rupanya banyak membahas soal strategi militer, konsep politik, bagaimana mengorganisir masyarakat, hinga bagaimana pamong praja harus bersikap dan memimpin masyarakat.

“Tapi dari kontennya sebenarnya dapat ditarik garis tentang ‘bagaimana militer itu mempergunakan dalih Undang-Undang’ untuk take power legally,” ungkap Norman Joshua, mahasiswa doktoral Nortwestern University, pembicara dalam Forum Amir Effendi Siregar (AES) seru ke-12 pada Sabtu (3/10). Diskusi yang diadakan oleh Prodi Ilmu Komunikasi UII ini ditayangkan langsung oleh TV online Uniicoms TV milik Komunikasi UII.

Media milik militer juga melakukan konter koran Harian rakyat yang notabene adalah milik golongan kiri. “Memang waktu itu tiap departemen punya terbitan. Chakra Vijaya milik korps Kehakiman Angkatan Darat. Tahun 60an, militer tidak hanya membicarakan tentang ancaman saja, atau soal dunia militer,” Kata Norman, “tapi juga soal hukum dan implementasinya di indoensia. Ada artikel juga yang membahas tentang siapa yang berhak mengadili dan menangkap tersangka di daerah yang termasuk dalam daerah masuk daerah keadaan perang.”

Selain membahas strategi militer, media militer juga membicarakan politik. “dan ini saat itu terlihat wajar dalam konsepsi Dwi Fungsi militer di Indonesia pada periode 1966,” kata Norman mengomentari mengapa konten media militer tak melulu bicara soal dunia militer.

Media milik militer terlihat sangat kentara menajamkan fokus kontennya untuk memiliterisasi kondisi sosial. Banyak hal di luar kewenangan militer mencoba diisukan dan dibahas dalam akademi hukum militer yang tercermin dalam majalah Chakra Vijaya milik Angkatan Darat.

Contoh lain adalah majalah Yudhagama dari Kementrian Pertahanan. Dan yang paling populer hingga beratahan lama itu adalah majalah Angkasa dari Angkatan Udara. “Mereka seakan sedang lomba dalam ‘battle field of discource’ dengan Harian Rakyat, seperti kita tau ada perdebatan wacana antara Militer dengan PKI di tahun 60an itu,” ungkap Norman.

pampam

Stagnation of Semiotic Studies in Indonesia: Considered as a Text Analysis Tool, Rather than Paradigm

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In the Amir Effendi Siregar forum on September 26, 2020, Muzayin Nazaruddin, Lecturer for Department of Communication Science of UII, conveyed some of the boredom and mistakes of researchers in Indonesia regarding the use of semiotic analysis in dissecting text in sign systems.

Muzayin, who is pursuing his Ph.D. study at Tartu University in the field of semiotics, sees the error in the perspective of semiotics by many researchers in Indonesia. “In Indonesia, semiotics is only seen as a method, not as a paradigm,” said Muzayin.

So far, if you want to analyze a text, images, videos, literary works, poetry, you will definitely use semiotics. “It’s a paradigmatic mistake. In communication there is a semiotic tradition, a way of looking at phenomena with a semiotic perspective,” said Muzayin.

Muzayin gave an example of a study that was commonly carried out by students and, unfortunately, also carried out by researchers. For example, research looks at what symbols appear in certain films or media. What is the meaning contained. For example, there are students researching patriotism in films. But if we then reflect on it, it turns out that he did not contribute anything to the development of the concept of patriotism.

Returning to the tendency of semiotics to be a text analysis tool rather than a paradigm. When semiotics is seen as a paradigm, it is not limited to just a method of analysis. The semiotic paradigm allows researchers to see every event, phenomenon, media, and natural phenomenon with a semiotic perspective.

For example, at Tartu University, where Muzayin took his doctoral program in Semiotics, there were various studies based on semiotics. Such as Cultural Semiotics, zoo semiotic, and even some that are not yet common in Indonesia which in Tartu are called bio-semiotic.

Then he continued his explanation by giving an example that if all communication phenomena, events are seen as a sign, which we can see at the receiver level, or at the production level, or at the context level if all are seen in a semi-related relationship, then all events can be analyzed using semiotics.

pampam

AES Forum  #11: Semiotics History on Communication Studies in Indonesia

Reading Time: 3 minutes

We have often heard about semiotics as a method of visual text analysis. Names like Roland Barthes, Pierce, or Saussure are no stranger to communicative friends. Semiotics as an analytical scalpel has even become a trend in analysis around the 2000s as seen from the existence of several compulsory courses on several campuses in Indonesia.

However, Muzayin Nazaruddin, one of the lecturers at the Islamic University Communication Science who also seriously studied semiotics with a master and took a Ph. D at the University of Tartu, wants to see in a bigger picture the tendency to use methods that are common in Indonesia. Semiotics should serve as a paradigm, not a text analysis tool.

At the Amir Effendi Siregar (AES) Forum on September 26, 2020, Muzayin showed a tendency to use the same semiotic tradition. As if it has become an example of how to operate the semiotic method in analyzing films or images. “That’s not wrong, but it’s boring.”

Muzayin gave an example of a study that is commonly carried out by students and, unfortunately, also carried out by researchers. For example, research looks at what symbols appear in certain films or media. What is the meaning contained. For example, there are students researching patriotism in films. However, if we reflect on it, it turns out that he did not contribute anything to the development of the concept of patriotism.

In research prevalence using semiotics, for example, there is also a common sense which is useless. “For example, we analyze a photo of a woman with a hijab, detailed analysis, we analyze the hijab, the background, what she is wearing, the analysis is complicated. The denotation and connotation are like this. Then at the end, this conclusion concludes that this woman is Muslim,” Muzayin explained an example of semiotic research which is common in Indonesia. “It looks like this is cool, the thesis is thick, but this is sad, because to say that a Muslim woman wearing a hijab does not have to use a semiotic. High school student also know that the hijab is a marker of a Muslim. This is where I often see semiotic research failing,” said Muzayin exemplifying more details. This ultimately makes semiotics studies boring, stagnant, and says nothing and does not contribute,” Muzayin said further.

How is the actual history of semiotics studies in Indonesia?

The development of semiotics studies in Indonesia can be seen for example in the 1990s. “In the 1990s, student study groups studied semiotics not from lecture texts. Then according to Emmanuel Subangun said that in 1992 the Circle of Semiotic Enthusiasts in Jakarta was established,” said Muzayin. This is quite encouraging, according to him.

Returning to the tendency of semiotics to be a text analysis tool rather than a paradigm. When Semiotics is seen as a paradigm, it does not narrow it just as analytical methods. The semiotic paradigm allows researchers to see every event, phenomenon, media, and natural phenomenon with a semiotic perspective. For example, at Tartu University, where Muzayin took his doctoral program in Semiotics, there were various studies based on semiotics, such as Culture Semiotics, zoo semiotic, there is even something that is not yet common in Indonesia which is called bio-semiotic in Tartu.

For semiotics, communication is the central point for understanding culture, said Muzayin. “This is especially for cultural semiotics,” Muzayin explained. As for Biosemiotics, Communication is a fundamental concept to understand nature. Muzayin continued, even for ecosemiotics, communication is central to understanding the dynamics relations of culture-nature.

“At the animal and plant level, even semiotics is understood as a communication between the two to see the semiosis process,” Muzayin added. This is a perspective that we need to understand together.

Semiotic analysis with a micro analysis model is to see the unit of analysis in detail in the film: break it down, then see the signs in the scene, then translate into denotation, index, symbol connotations, etc.

In fact there are other ways, for example macro analysis by viewing the film, by relating various phenomena or the context of the film being made and then analyzed. “How do we see a film as a sign that is present in a certain sign system and then interpreted as a sign,” Muzayin explained.

 

pampam

Stagnasi Kajian Semiotika di Indonesia: Dianggap Alat Analisis Teks, Ketimbang Paradigma

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Dalam forum Amir Effendi Siregar pada 26 September 2020, Muzayin Nazaruddin, Dosen Komunikasi UII, menyampaikan beberapa kebosanan dan kekeliruan para peneliti di indonesia terkait penggunaan analisis semiotika dalam membedah teks dalam sistem tanda.

Muzayin, yang sedang melanjutkan studi Ph.D di Tartu University di bidang semiotika, melihat kesalahan cara pandang semiotika oleh banyak peneliti di Indonesia. “DI Indonesia semiotika baru dipandang sebagai sebuah metode saja, belum sebagai sebuah paradigma,” ungkap Muzayin.

Selama ini kalau ingin menganalisis sebuah teks gambar, video, karya sastra, puisi pasti akan memakai semiotika. “Itu keliru sacara paradigmatis. Dalam komunikasi ada tradisi semiotika, cara mamandang fenomena dengan kacamata semiotika,” ungkap Muzayin.

Muzayin mencontohkan sebuah penelitian yang lazim dilakukan mahasiswa dan, sayangnya, juga dilakukan peneliti. Misal penelitian melihat simbol apa yang muncul dalam film atau media tertentu. Apa makna yang terkandung. Misalnya ada mahasiswa meneliti patriotisme dalam film. Tapi kalau kita kemudian renungkan, ternyata dia tidak memberikan sumbangsih apapun bagi pengembangan konsep patriotisme.

Kembali pada kecenderungan semiotika menjadi sebuah alat analisis teks ketimbang paradigma. Ketika Semiotika dipandang sebagai paradigma, maka ia tidak menyempit hanya sebagai metode analisis. Paradigma semiotik memungkinkan peneliti melihat setiap peristiwa, fenomena, media, dan gejala alam dengan cara pandang semiotik.

Misal, di Tartu University, tempat Muzayin mengambil program doktor Semiotika, hadir beragam kajian berdasar semiotika. Seperti Semiotika Budaya (culture semiotic), zoo semiotic, bahkan ada yang belum lazim di Indonesia yang di Tartu disebut bio-semiotic.

Lalu ia melanjutkan penjelasaannya dengan memberikan contoh bahwa jika semua fenomena komunikasi, peristiwa dilihat sebagai sebuah sign, yang bisa kita lihat di level penerima, atau level produksi, atau di level konteks jika semua dilihat secara semiosis yang saling berkaitan, maka semua peristiwa bisa dianalisa menggunakan semiotika.

pampam

Forum AES  #11: Sejarah Semiotika dalam Kajian Komunikasi di Indonesia

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Semiotika sebagi sebuah metode analisis teks visual sudah sering kita dengar. Nama seperti Roland Barthes, Pierce, atau Saussure pasti juga tak asing bagi teman-temen komunikasi. Semiotika sebagai pisau bedah analisis bahkan pernah menjadi trend analisis di sekitar tahun 2000an terlihat dari adanya beberapa mata kuliah wajib di beberapa kampus di Indonesia.

Tetapi, Muzayin Nazaruddin, salah sorang pengajar di Ilmu Komunikasi Universitas Islam yang juga secara serius mempelajari semiotika dengan master dan menempuh Ph. D di University of Tartu, ingin melihat dalam gambaran lebih besar kecenderungan penggunaan metode yang jamak di lakukan di Indonesia. Semiotika harus dijadikan sebagai paradigma, alih-alih sebuah alat analisis teks.

Dalam acara Forum Amir Effendi Siregar (AES) pada 26 September 2020, Muzayin menunjukkan kecenderungan penggunakan tradisi semiotik yang itu-itu saja. Seolah sudah menjadi contoh bagaimana mengoperasikan metode semiotika dalam mengalisas film atau gambar. “Itu tidak salah, tapi membosankan.”

Dalam kelaziman penelitan menggunakan semiotika, misal, ada juga kelaziman yang sia-sia. “Misal kita menganalisis sebuah foto perempuan berjilbab, analisis detil, kita analisis jilbabnya, latarnya, apa yang ia pakai, analisisnya rumit. Denotasi dan konotasinya seperti ini. Lalu di ujungnya, kesimpulan ini menyimpulkan bahwa perempuan ini muslim,” Muzayin menjelaskan contoh penelitian semiotika yang umum di indonesia.

“Kelihatannya seperti ini keren, tebal skripsinya, tetapi Ini menyedihkan, karena untuk mengatakan perempuan berjilbab ini muslim tidak usah menggunakan semiotik. Anak SMA pun tahu bahwa jilbab adalah penanda seorang muslim. Di sinilah saya sering melihat penelitian semiotika gagal,” papar Muzayin mencontohkan lebih detil. Ini kan akhirnya membuat kajian semiotika menjadi membosankan, stagnan, dan tidak mengatakan apa-apa dan tidak berkontribusi,” kata Muzayin lebih jauh.

Bagaimana sebenarnya sejarah studi semiotika di Indonesia?

Perkembangan studi Semiotika di Indonesia bisa dilihat misal di tahun 1990an. “Di awal dekade 1990an kelompok studi mahasiswa belajar semiotika bukan dari teks-teks kuliah justru. Kemudian menurut Emmanuel Subangun mengatakan bahwa pada 1992 telah berdiri Lingkaran Peminat Semiotik  di Jakarta,” kata Muzayin. Ini cukup menggembirakan, menurutnya.

Bagi semiotika, komunikasi adalah titik sentral untuk memahami kebudayaan (culture), kata Muzayin. “Ini khususnya bagi cultural semiotics,” jelas Muzayin.  Sedangkan bagi Biosemiotics, komunikasi adalah konsep mendasar untuk memahani nature. Muzayin melanjutkan, bahkan bagi ecosemiotics, komunikasi adalah sentral untuk memahami dinamika relasi culture-nature.

“Di level hewan dan tumbuhan, bahkan semiotik dipahami sebagai komunikasi antara keduanya untuk melihat proses semiosis,” kata Muzayin menambahkan. Ini adalah perspektif yang perlu kita pahami bersama.

Analisis semiotika dengan model mikro analisis yaitu melihat unit analisis dengan detail dalam film: memecah, lalu melihat tanda-tanda dalam scene tersebut, lalu menerjemahkan dalam konotasi denotasi, indeks, simbol, dll.

Sebenarnya ada cara lain, misalnya analsis secara makro dengan melihat film tersebut, dengan mengaitkan berbagai fenomena atau konteks film itu dibuat lalu dianalisis. “Bagaimana kita melihat film sebagai sebuah sign yang hadir dalam sebuah sign system tertentu lalu dimaknai sebagai suatu petanda,” jelas Muzayin.