The Power Struggle in the Testimony of Sudirman Said to the House Ethics Council (MKD)  

Oleh:

Nurhayati

Jenis: Article from Proceeding
Dalam koleksi: KOLITA 14 : Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya Keempat Belas, page 259-263.
Topik: Unequal power relation; Domination; Sustaining power; Challenging power; Manipulating meaning
Fulltext: hal 259-263.pdf (18.75MB)

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan PKBB Nomor Panggil: 406 KLA 14 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 1) Tandon: 1

Reserve Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

In the reformation era, two institutions in Indonesia that always struggle for power are the executive and legislative institution. Their struggle is mostly enacted through discourse produced by their members. Recently, media have exposed news representing political conflict between the two institutions. It was triggered by the act of Sudirman Said as Energy and mineral Resources Minister reporting Setya Novanto as Indonesian House Speaker to MKD for allegation of ethical violation regarding a meeting among three people: Setya Novanto, Maroef Syamsoeddin (the leader of PT Freeport Indonesia), and oil tycoon Reza Chalid. Responding to the conflict, members of the two institutions produced discourse performing their power struggle. Their choice of lexicogrammatical aspects in the discourse may represent the acts of reasserting, sustaining, and winnning power. This study concerns with political discourse representing their conflict related to the Freeport case. It is the political event of uttering and listening to the testimony of Sudirman Said to the members of MKD, clarifying his action to report Setya Novanto to MKD. The study aims to uncover that the discourses of Sudirman Said and the members of MKD, represent the two opposing institutions to exercise power. Using critical discourse analysis approach proposed by Fairclough (1989, 2003, 2010) and van Dijk (1993, 1997, 2001), I want to answer two research questions: (i) what kinds of lexicogrammar forms are chosen to represent the power relation between the two opposing institutions? and (ii) what is the relation between the discourse practice and socio-cultural contexts? Data are the utterances of Sudirman Said’s testimony and of members of MKD’s investigation. The data were collected from the recorded event of testimony uploaded in Youtube. I downloaded the record and transcribed it into the written text. To analyze data, I use three stages of doing critical disourse analysis, those are describing formal properties of the text, interpreting the discourse process, and explaining the relationship between discourse and social context. The preliminary finding shows that MKD exercised their power through (i) controlling the access of Sudirman said in giving information and clarification, (ii) asking non-essential questions, (iii) using question tags for getting justification, and (iv) controlling shared knowledge through manipulating presuppotions. On the other hand, Sudirman Said challenged the MKD’s power through (i) not answering the question; (ii) avoiding to give detail explannation; and (iii) giving the unquestioned information. The such discourses were produced because both institutions claim as having position that can not be intervened. On the other hand, the ways of action (genre) in the discourse event may be shaped by other genre, that is the genre of interrogation in court.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali