TUHAN TIDAK PERNAH TANPA PROSES

A. PENGANTAR

Semua yang diciptakan oleh Tuhan selalu melewati sebuah proses yang panjang. Penciptaan langit, bumi, serta segala isinya, semua melalui sebuah proses. Seperti contohnya perjuangan seekor ulat yang harus berproses menjadi seekor kupu-kupu. Tuhan membiarkan segala ciptaanNya berproses untuk mempelajari kehidupan. Segala peristiwa alam yang terjadi di bumi ini pun tidak terbentuk begitu saja, namun melalui proses.

Sebagai contoh, keberadaan sungai sangat berguna bagi kehidupan semua makhluk hidup di sekitarnya. Berbagai peradaban tersohor di bumi lahir dari wilayah-wilayah yang berada di tepian sungai. Sungai pun tidak secara tiba-tiba ada. Tuhan menciptakan sungai melalui proses yang panjang dengan melibatkan ciptaanNya yang lain. Aliran air berasal dari satu atau beberapa sumber air yang berada di puncak bukit atau gunung, yang terkumpul di bagian yang lebih cekung. Air yang berasal dari ketinggian tersebut awalnya merupakan kumpulan air hujan yang membahasi bumi. Lambat laun, setelah air dalam cekungan bumi tersebut mulai penuh, air akan segera mengalir keluar dari bagian bibir cekungan yang paling mudah tergerus air. Selanjutnya, air akan mengalir di atas permukaan tanah yang paling rendah. Pada awalnya, aliran air tersebut berjalan merata, namun karena ada bagian-bagian permukaan tanah yang tidak begitu keras, sehingga mudah terkikis, air pun berkelok dan jatuh ke bawah. Alur air yang tercipta semakin hari semakin panjang, seiring dengan makin derasnya dan makin seringnya air yang terkumpul di daerah ketinggian. Akibatnya, aliran air semakin panjang, semakin dalam, berbelok, dan kemudian bercabang. Perjalanan air tidak akan terhenti dan terus menembus ke bawah permukaan tanah dan mengalir ke arah dataran yang rendah.

Anda tentu bisa membayangkan bahwa proses terbentuknya sungai begitu panjang dan rumit. Jika terbentuknya sungai saja membutuhkan liku-liku yang kompleks, begitu pula halnya dengan proses penciptaan manusia secara fisik maupun secara mental.

Sebagai ilustrasi, mari sama-sama melihat proses pembelajaran seorang anak di sekolah. Para pelajar selalu ditekankan oleh orangtua maupun gurunya untuk mendapatkan nilai yang terbaik di setiap pelajaran. Pada dasarnya, terkadang mereka tidak mengerti untuk apa nilai yang baik tersebut. Dalam benak para murid, mendapatkan nilai yang baik sama artinya dengan naiknya status sosial mereka di dalam masyarakat. Semua murid dengan tujuan yang sama tersebut ternyata melakukan berbagai usaha dengan berbagai cara yang berbeda. Itulah proses mereka. Ada yang belajar tekun dengan bersungguh-sungguh, ada yang berusaha menyukai pelajarannya agar mudah untuk memahami, ada pula yang bersikap acuh dan memutuskan untuk mencontek pada saat ujian tiba.

Ketika ujian tiba dan setelahnya semua mendapatkan nilai yang tinggi, apa yang membuatnya berbeda? Rata-rata manusia hanya melihat sebuah proses dari hasil akhirnya saja. Itulah keterbatasan manusia yang cenderung berorientasi kepada hasil dibandingkan proses yang sesungguhnya mendewasakan. Tetapi, Tuhan selalu dapat menilai semua makhluk ciptaanNya melalui proses yang dilaluinya. Tuhan mengetahui siapa yang lebih bernilai dari semua murid yang memperoleh nilai tinggi tersebut.

B. PROSES SEORANG MANUSIA

Kemanusiaan ditunjukkan lewat berbagai proses. Kelahiran manusia ke dalam dunia ini membutuhkan waktu sekitar sembilan bulan. Setelah itu, manusia harus menjalani berbagai proses lagi seperti belajar berjalan, berbicara, dan mengenal benda. Sementara, binatang seperti singa dan kuda begitu dilahirkan langsung bisa berjalan dalam hitungan jam. Oleh karena itu, seluruh proses ekonomi, sosial, budaya, hingga politik yang serba instan tanpa proses, tidak lebih melahirkan sifat 'kebinatangan'.

Dalam hidup, manusia terus berproses. Mereka pun berproses dalam perjalanannya mengenal Tuhan. Ketika masih kecil, mungkin Anda dengan begitu saja percaya terhadap Tuhan. Saat beranjak dewasa, bisa jadi Anda mulai melakukan pertanyaan-pertanyaan tentang iman secara kritis dan berusaha merasionalisasikannya. Bagaimana manusia diharuskan berpikir secara kritis dan cerdas. Setiap proses yang dijalani harus menghasilkan perubahan ke arah kebaikan. Dalam berproses, manusia harus menyiapkan kesabaran dan keikhlasan untuk melalui proses-proses tersebut. Kesabaran dan keikhlasan dalam berproses dibutuhkan guna mengantisipasi setiap tantangan dan hambatan yang selalu ada dalam menjalani proses tersebut. Manusia pun akan tetap memiliki energi untuk melanjutkan sebuah proses yang sukses dan utuh. Tentunya dengan proses yang lebih baik dibandingkan sebelumnya.

Wilhelm Schmidt (Schmidt, 1912) menyatakan bahwa telah ada suatu Primitive Monotheism sebelum manusia mulai menyembah banyak dewa. Pada awalnya, mereka mengakui hanya ada satu Tuhan tertinggi, yang telah menciptakan dunia dan menata urusan manusia dari kejauhan. Kepercayaan terhadap satu Tuhan Tertinggi (kadang disebut sebagai Tuhan Langit, karena diasosiasikan dengan ketinggian) masih terlihat dalam agama suku-suku pribumi Afrika. Mereka mengungkapkan kerinduan terhadap Tuhan melalui doa; percaya bahwa Tuhan mengawasi mereka dan menghukum setiap dosa. Namun anehnya, Dia tidak hadir dalam keseharian mereka; tidak ada kultus khusus untukNya dan Dia tidak pernah tampil dalam penggambaran. Warga suku tersebut mengatakan bahwa Dia tidak bisa diekspresikan dan tidak dapat dicemari oleh dunia manusia. Sebagian orang bahkan mengatakan "Dia" telah pergi. Para antropolog berasumsi bahwa Tuhan ini telah menjadi begitu jauh dan mulia sehingga dia sebenarnya telah digantikan oleh roh yang lebih rendah dan Tuhan-Tuhan yang lebih mudah dijangkau. Begitu pula, pada zaman kuno, Tuhan Tertinggi digantikan oleh Tuhan-Tuhan kuil Pagan yang lebih menarik. Pada awalnya, dengan demikian hanya ada satu Tuhan. Jika demikian, Monotheism merupakan salah satu ide tua yang dikembangkan manusia untuk menjelaskan misteri dan tragedi kehidupan.

Kembali ke dalam pembahasan, dalam hidup, manusia terus berproses. Mereka pun berproses dalam perjalanannya mengenal Tuhan. Manusia membentuk aturan, norma, adat, dan tata cara melalui sebuah kesepakatan bersama untuk menghasilkan sebuah keselarasan. Jika ada pihak-pihak yang mencoba melanggar kesepakatan bersama tersebut, maka konflik bisa tercipta. Tahapan-tahapan dalam hidup manusia pun dipengaruhi oleh aturan dalam hidup bermasyarakat.

a. Proses Meniru

Ketika dilahirkan, manusia telah membawa potensi dalam dirinya. Setiap individu berusaha untuk memenuhi hasrat dan motivasi dalam dirinya; beradaptasi, belajar dari alam, lingkungan sosial, dan budayanya.

Saat masih kecil, manusia selalu meniru apa yang dianggapnya menarik. Anak-anak melihat orangtuanya sholat di masjid, kebaktian di gereja, membakar hio di klenteng, berdoa di wihara, dan melakukan ritual peribadatan yang lainnya. Anak-anak akan meniru kebiasaan orangtuanya meskipun belum memahami apa tujuan dari ibadah yang dilakukannya. Memori anak pun akan merekam kebiasaan tersebut sehingga setelah dewasa, ada perasaan untuk tetap melakukannya.

Di sisi lain, anak-anak juga belajar bertutur kata dengan sopan. Dalam prosesnya, anak-anak belajar untuk menerima akibat dari apa yang diucapkannya. Dari konsekuensi tersebutlah proses kehidupan berlanjut. Ketika mengatakannya kata-kata yang kasar, mereka akan tahu bahwa hal tersebut akan menyakiti orang lain. Saat berbicara dengan sopan dan halus, mereka akan merasakan keramahan dari orang lain.

Setiap hari, setiap saat, manusia mendapatkan hal-hal yang baru dan mencoba hal-hal yang belum diketahui. Proses tersebut dinamakan internalisasi.

b. Proses Perkembangan Emosi

Masa yang menentukan masa depan seorang manusia ditentukan dari bagaimana ia memanfaatkan amsa remajanya. Kesalahan pada masa muda ini dapat menghancurkan hidup seseorang. Pada saat remaja, perkembangan emosi akan memuncak karena saat itulah proses menuju kedewasaan terjadi. Pada saat remaja, emosi menjadi sulit dikendalikan sehingga kerap melakukan berbagai kesalahan tanpa disadari. Jika Anda telah beranjak tua atau dewasa, Anda akan mengingat kembali masa remaja dan berpikir untuk mengubah masa lalu agar masa depan menjadi lebih baik dari saat ini.

Remaja selalu berusaha untuk diterima dalam lingkungannya. Mereka mencoba untuk bersosialisasi agar dirinya mendapatkan tempat. Sosialisasi merupakan pengalaman sosial sepanjang hidup yang memungkinkan seseorang mengembangkan potensi kemanusiaannya dan mempelajari pola-pola kebudayaan yang ada di lingkungannya. Dari sosialisasi inilah seorang manusia berusaha untuk mematangkan emosinya dan menuju ke pendewasaan diri.

c. Proses Pendewasaan

Menjadi tua adalah kepastian, namun menjadi dewasa adalah sebuah pilihan. Sebuah ungkapan yang sering disebut oleh banyak orang untuk mendefinisikan makna dewasa. Berulang kali manusia melakukan penafsiran atas pribadi yang dewasa, mulai dari perkembangan biologis, status yang ditetapkan oleh negara, sampai beragam proses diri yang dapat dianggap sesuai kategori dewasa.

Dewasa merupakan kemampuan untuk mendahulukan kebenaran sebelum segala sesuatunya. Kesetiaan pada kebenaran itulah yang menyebabkan seorang manusia menjadi lebih dewasa, dan sebaliknya, ketidakpedulian terhadap yang benar membuat manusia menjadi budak dari hawa nafsu.

Manusia bisa dikatakan dewasa secara rohani ketika dirinya tidak lagi mempertanyakan semuanya lewat sudut pandang rasional. Banyak keajaiban yang terjadi di bumi lewat tangan Tuhan. Mereka yang memahaminya dengan mudah dan tidak selalu menggugat takdir adalah manusia-manusia yang berjabat tangan dengan Tuhan. Sesungguhnya, Anda tengah mendapat pencobaan dari Tuhan, dan hal tersebut berarti bahwa Tuhan tengah mendewasakan Anda.

d. Proses Menuju Tempat Tuhan

Menjadi tua adalah sebuah proses normal. Setiap manusia dapat mengalami masa tua. Di dunia, manusia melalui salah satu dari fase perjalanan kehidupannya. Fase perjalanan kehidupan manusia di dunia adalah fase perjalanan yang panjang dan berliku. Manusia menjalani kehidupan di dunia dengan membawa tugas dari Tuhan. Manusia diberikan ujian oleh Tuhan di dunia untuk menunjukkan siapa saja manusia yang terbaik amal perbuatannya. Manusia harus berjuang dan berusaha untuk melalui ujian-ujian dari Tuhan. Tuhan telah memberikan petunjuk kepada manusia untuk menjalani kehidupannya di dunia.

Kehidupan manusia di dunia merupakan bagian dari fase perjalanan panjang hidup manusia. Fase sebelum menuju akhir perjalanan, menuju tempat tujuan. Di dunia, manusia mempersiapkan diri untuk menuju tempat tujuan di akhir perjalanan hidupnya. Kehidupan dunia adalah penentu dari akhir perjalanan kehidupan manusia. Keberhasilan manusia untuk sampai di tempat yang dituju tergantung dari perjalanan hidupnya di dunia.

C. DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1912. The Origin of the Idea of God.

MUSIC EDUCATION AND ETHNOMUSICOLOGY: AN USUAL HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIPS

"this is a reproduction of the keynote address given at the discussion forums and meeting of the International Society for Music Education (ISME), "International Discussion Forums for Music Education and World Ethnomusicology" held on October 6th-9th, 2014, in Berlin, Germany. Some of the points made here have also been made by the author, at greater length, in an collaboration essay of the young ethnomusicologist delegations from around the world, "Some Contribution for Ethnomusicology"."



A. PRE-WORDS FROM ANANDA SUWARNO

I am very honored to have been invited to speak to you, members of this distinguished and powerful society of educators. As you know, music education in the most specific sense is not my field, but I have been involved with the International Society for Music Education (ISME) for some years now, as a young researcher. I was invited then to chair as one of twenty-six young committee whose task it was to "do something" about the world of music, a concept then perhaps newly discovered by this organization. I learned much from lengthy deliberations with the members of the committee. We did not accomplish great deal, but we did craft a policy statement that the ISME board subsequently adopted. It included the recommendation that each system of music education should include three components: the study of Western classical music, the study of local music traditions, and something of the music of the rest of the world. This was accepted, although I think a number of board members would have wished to privilege the Western art music tradition, which had always been the cornerstone of music education in the modern world. Just fifteen months later, I was approached by the then president, Professor Gary McPherson, who said something like, "why did you include the requirement that Western art music be taught everywhere?"

Clearly it was no longer the concept of world music that needed defending, but the old Western tradition. I told Professor McPherson, "we did not think your board would ever accept the inclusion of world music if we did not make clear our loyalty to the old canon." Today, that canon has become simply an option, I think.

So, perhaps we can claim that ethnomusicology has finally "arrived" as a source of musical materials, ideas about music, and ways of looking at the world's music. But actually, ideas that characterize ethnomusicology have played important roles in music education for a very long time. It is a history with an interesting narrative, but, that's not my job here. Still, let me remind us, restricting myself to the European and North American perspective from which I come, with the full realization that you, coming from all the world's continents, could provide many parallels.

I would like to trace, and maybe to meditate upon, relationships between music education in the broad sense, and ethnomusicology. I would like to say few words about questions of aesthetics as an impulse for both of our fields, the nature of the musical world, the importance of authenticity, the importance of music for understanding culture, and what kind of people we are, and are we doing anyone any good?



B. QUESTIONS OF AESTHETICS

I am not sure what music educators of the world have in common, but I would guess that one thing is that they wish to impart to their students their belief that music is, in some sense of the word, beautiful. I won't get into the definition of beauty, but, in some ways, musicking is, along with everything else, an aesthetic experience. Music is, in American terminology, fun, enjoyable, something to like, and or something to love.

When I began studying ethnomusicology, my first experience was hearing music of the Native Americans of the Plain. At that time, the last thing I would have said was that I considered this music was beautiful. That might have come later, and surely in various ways the people whose music this is consider it an aesthetic experience. I am not talking about intrinsic beauty. The point is that for ethnomusicologists, surely at that time, what was important about this music was that it represented a Native American culture, it was important to its people, accomplished certain things for them, and told us things about their world. If my fellow students, involved in Bach and Stravinsky, ask me whether I "liked" this music, I told them that this was the wrong question.

So, if I undertook to play some of these recordings for school children, say, it was not to be able to say to them, "see how pretty this song is." Ethnomusicologists had the task of showing that music was a serious business, that to most peoples in the world it went much farther than being simply something to enjoy. But, many music educators have tried to help their students enjoy the music of other cultures by making it more like their own (adding harmony or piano accompaniment, simplifying rhythm, and so on).

I am not sure what date to give you for the beginnings of ethnomusicology in Europe, to say nothing of how you would describe the ancestry of the world's various ethnomusicologies. However, one of our culture heroes, Erich M. von Hornbostel, undertook to introduce the field in a lecture given and published in 1905 (see Hornbostel, 1904-05), and said that its principal problems were the understanding of the origins and evolution of music, and the understanding of the nature of musical beauty. I have often wondered how it was that most ethnomusicologists did not seem to follow up on the "beauty" component. I think because they came to see aesthetic issues as too culture specific.

They would say, if you (American or European) do not like, for example, a piece of Australian Aboriginal Didjeridu music, that was irrelevant. You do not understand the musical language of the Aborigines. And, as a matter of fact, if you do like it, that was also irrelevant. You probably like it for the wrong reasons.

So, it would seem that music educators and ethnomusicologists approached music from opposite perspectives. Well, my job here is to bring up, when I can, the harmonious relationship between music education and ethnomusicology. In the past few decades, many ethnomusicologists have come to look at their music more as something they love than as something that informs them intellectually. One of my department colleagues at home, a man very much involved with the anthropology of music, when I asked him what it was that determined his area of interest, told me, "it is always the music first; you have to be turned on by the music, then the other interests begin to accrue." And indeed, the fact that, increasingly, ethnomusicologists have turned to participation and to the study of performance in their fieldwork leads them to feel about this music as their conservatory colleagues would feel about Chapin and Mozart.

But, at the same time, I think that educators have come to realize that music can teach you a lot beyond nice sounds and how to appreciate them, and how to make them. Increasingly, they find that they learn about people through their music, that many of the world's people express the important things about their lives and their culture through music. And so, while ethnomusicologists have perhaps increasingly become humanists in their hearts, music educators have, at least part of the time, become anthropologists of music.



C. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE MUSICAL WORLD?

We, music educators in the broadest sense, have come a long way. We no longer think that the ideal world would  do away with all of the world's folk and popular musics, and live entirely on the great European classics. If I understand it correctly, ISME no longer requires everybody to know about Bach and Beethoven. I have a feeling that this is a fairly recent development.

Let me tell you about my first experience with the ISME. In 2011, I had the honor of giving an address in Seoul, at a meeting at which Korean music (indeed, a festival of Korean traditional, mostly classical music) would be featured. My talk was entitled "Ethnomusicology and the Teaching of World Music", and my point, and much of the conversation at the meeting, concerned the preservation and presentation of authentic non-Western music to music students everywhere. The nature of the musical world at that meeting was a world consisting of a large number of discrete musics. Music may be universal to humankind, but, contrary to the poet Longfellow, music is not the universal language of mankind, but, rather, a group of discrete languages, or perhaps better stated, systems of communication, each integrated and unified, and each of them must be learned. Moreover, the general accepted attitude was that although there are these non-Western musics, Western classical music was distinct and different in a separate category.

I remember playing a tape cassette with twenty 15-seconds examples to illustrate the world's musical diversity, and I was surprised to find some controversy regarding the appropriateness of putting Bulgarian folk music, a Chinese work for San-Shien, singing by the South African choir "Ladysmith Black Mambazo", and Persian music on the santour (the trapezoid-shaped hammered dulcimer) next to a Chopin etude. I wonder whether you today would have the same discomfort, I suspect not.

Regarding the world of music as a group of distinct musical systems, each with its boundaries, separate and discrete, was a progressive view of world music. In some ways, I still think that this is helpful, though it is not actually that realistic. The nature of the musical world today, certainly, and maybe twenty years ago too, is different. I am not sure just how one would quantify this kind of a statement of change and difference,but it is my firm belief that the boundaries between musics are far more indistinct and fluid, and the integrity of each of the world's musics much less firm, than many of us believe. I suspect it has always been so, but it is certainly a lot more that way now. I do not know if I can persuade you. Is a peace of music in the genre in the genre known as "North American Indian rock music" in essence truly Native American, or Western, or is it a mix, and a bit African-influenced? Or, is the violin concerto by Mozart, nicknamed the Turkish, simply a work of Western with reference to somebody's idea of Turkish music, or could it be have been considered , from a Turkish perspective, a work showing the reach of Turkish culture before 1800?

There's a lot to be argued about here. You may not agree with my implied interpretations. But the point I am trying to make is that maybe today, and probably for some time, the world's normal music is a cultural mix of some kind. All musics bears influences from other cultures. If you agree with that, what might this suggest to us as teachers of music at all levels?

I should not tell you what to do, but I have the feeling that much of the energy of music teaching, d I realize that this is an incredible generalization, has been devoted to the presentation of music as a major factor in ethnic, cultural and national identity. In the United States, certainly, we have lately spent a lot of energy proving to ourselves that there is a distinct American music, a distinct American voice in music. My experience is limited, but I have a feeling that this has been the attitude of much music teaching elsewhere too. Maybe we should emphasize the opposite perspective, the music is one of the domains of culture that establishes and expresses cultural relationships, not because music is the universal language that everyone can understand, but because music expresses and interprets relationships among cultures and societies. Am I not talking here about harmony, the principal theme of this conference?

Curiously, it is only relatively recently that ethnomusicologists began to study, in the field, the ways different peoples teach and learn their musics. Today, it seems to me that understanding the way a culture transmits itself, if I can put it that way, is really central to an understanding of the music. What is transmitted, tunes, rhythms, the need to be consistent, or the need to always vary, and the way such pieces are broken up for teaching, special exercises, it seems to me that these are all part of the essence of music. Until the 1970's, most ethnomusicologists were satisfied with saying that people learned their music simply by rote. Well, here is an area in which music educators, music education researchers, in their detailed study of how people in their own culture learn and teach, were, it seems to me, thoroughly ahead of ethnomusicology.

In this discussion, you may think that I have given up on concepts such as tradition and authenticity. But, I must tell you that what has turned me on to the study of ethnomusicology, which I began six years ago, has always been not the unity of world music and its universals, but rather the enormous diversity of musics of the world, their diverse sounds, and the diversity of ideas about the world. And so I have always toggled between a sense of science and objectivity, and a feeling that each society interprets the world in its own way. In American anthropology, this used to be called the etic and emic interpretations (for explanations of these terms, see Nettl 2005, 186-87).

And so, I see the nature of the musical world as dominated by the combination of cultures. But, if boundaries among musics are fluid, then it is important to also accept a related notion, that each society may have its own conception of the musical world. Let me return to my first area of study, the music of the Native American peoples. To some peoples, such as the Havasupai of the Grand Canyon, the musical universe is vast. Music existed before there were humans. Pre-human spirits sang to each other, but did not speak. But, it was also limited. All songs already existed in the cosmos, waiting to be discovered by human composers. The Blackfoot people, with whom I worked, saw music as something coming from supernatural sources, but without limit. Men have visions in which spirits, usually animals, taught them new songs. Theoretically, a man might have unlimited numbers of visions, and learn an unlimited number of songs. New songs could always be created, this view is somewhat similar to the Western view of composition. But, the Blackfoot people today see music as bifurcated (Indian music and white music, the first mainly spiritual, and the second difficult) mainly technical, or even technological (for further discussion of the concepts in this paragraph, see Nettl 1989, 58-65, and the references provided therein).

In modern American culture, as a further example, the musical universe is infinite. Any sound, such as animal sounds, industrial noises, may be considered music if it appears in a musical social context, such as a concert or on a recording labeled as music. On the other hand, when I studied about Iran, about four years ago, I found that the question was pretty complicated, as certain kinds of expression that sounded musical to me were not accepted as belonging to the term musics, but, were considered instead to belong to a concept, Khandan, which means reading, reciting, and explicitly singing.

The point I am trying to make is that each culture has its own conception of the musical universe. I have always found this wonderful, supporting my notion of the musical world as infinitely variable. I am not sure whether music teachers in schools believe that this is a point worth making. I think it is not only significant that the world's musics sound different, but also that the world's societies have sometimes radically different ideas about music. But, of course, we come upon a conflict of ideas here. Should we, as educators, emphasize the differences between musics, should we say that while we wish the world's peoples to live in a harmony, in music, harmoniousness should mean the understanding of differences? Or, should we stick to the old notion of music, the universal language of humankind, and emphasize what they have in common? I mean, educators in the conventional sense, and ethnomusicologists as educators. You can see that our two fields face similar issues.



D. A RELATED ISSUE: AUTHENTICITY AND TRADITION

But, there is also the issue of authenticity and tradition. When I was a student (excuse me for always referring to those old times), one of my teacher named George Herzog, a Hungarian, very much influenced by Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly, wanted to be sure that his students of non-Western and folk musics understood the importance of authenticity. In studying African music, for example, he did not want us to take much interest in popular music because it combined older African traditions with Western instruments, and because African rhythms were being simplified to be more compatible with Western rhythmic practices. He told us that Bartok was interested in making sure that people, in Hungary and elsewhere, did not think that the music of Hungarian Roma was the "true" Hungarian folk song, and that the music in the categories he called "old" and "new" style was the truly authentic.

Partly, this notion of authenticity takes us back to the consideration of the world of music as a group of discrete musics. But, it was not just ethnomusicologists who cared so much about the authenticity, or about collecting and preserving music that was truly the music of a particular society. For example, others interested in folk music (organizers of festivals, urban folk musicians, etc.) also felt that they had a major stake in this process. Indeed, when I was a student, I had the opportunity of taking courses in the discipline of folklore, then only getting started in the Germany, and one of the issues constantly being debated was this authenticity. Is a particular piece of folklore truly authentic? How can one tell? Must it be in oral tradition? How old does it have to be at a minimum? Can people in modern society create authentic folklore? (see Thompson, 1952)

By now, we consider it an insoluble question, a moot point. Folklore and folk music are not intrinsically different from other literature or music. The fact that they usually exist in oral tradition make them simply like the vast majority of the world's music. And that brings me to another area related to this issue of authenticity, the intrinsic difference between notated music and music in the oral tradition. Maybe this is an issue in which music educators and ethnomusicologists are not quiet so comfortable with each other.

Here is my point, and I hope I have my facts right. Music educators in Europe, in the Western hemisphere, and I think everywhere else, consider it reasonably important for their students to learn European musical notation. I think they pay far less attention to the ability to learn music by hearing it, by oral tradition. But if, as I have just said, an important finding of ethnomusicology is that the normal way to learn music in the world is by hearing it, then should not we, who are trying to teach music as an universal value, be most concerned with this?

Ah, you will say, "Very correctly! Western notation works very well, so why should not everyone have access to this marvelous technology?" That is what it is, after all. But an intrinsic quality of European and American folk music is its fluidity, its variability, which derive from its aural existence, and that is an important element that may disappear when we depend entirely on written scores. And another example, if Native Americans of the Plains believe that one learns a song in one hearing, why should not we try to get our students to do this, or at least, to appreciate it if this music enters a classroom? I am sure you all can think of parallel examples in any of the world's cultures.

In expanding the musical horizon of students (and I do not just mean young children), we should go beyond finding efficient ways of imparting and internalizing the sound of the music, the notes, if you will, and include an understanding of intrinsic concepts to it, concepts such as oral transmission, or of the existence of a song in many variants. The most obvious thing that comes to mind is variants of European folk songs. But, in South Indian classical music, too, each musician has his or her own way of performing songs by the great nineteenth-century composers such as Tyagaraja and Dikshitar. They would not be at all alike, and I think, no one would label one as more authentic than the other.

The fact that everyone has their own version is part of the authenticity of the song. But, of course, while in my student days, there was a lot of emphasis on authenticity that today, ethnomusicologists pay far less attention to it and often seeing it as an useless and obsolete ideas. To a large extent, I have to agree. I have already pointed out that the world of music today consists to a large extent of music that has multicultural sources. The idea that there is a pure Czech folk music, a pure Navajo Indian music, a pure Carnatic music in Southern India ... those notions are imaginary. So, does the concept of the authenticity still have relevance?



E. THE IMPORTANCE OF MUSIC FOR UNDERSTANDING CULTURE

At this point, I would like to take up another issue, the uses of music for understanding cultures. Let me begin by going quite far back, to a classic definition of culture, by the nineteenth-century English scholar, Edward B. Tylor. Culture is "that complex whole, including knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, laws, customs, and any other habits or capacities acquired by man as a member of society" (Tylor, 1871: 1). Let me restate it in a slightly more modern way. Culture is the method by which we learn the ways of interpreting the world, and the rules behavior, from people in whose company we are raised and lived. Note please, Tylor included art, and I see this as one way in which peoples interprets their world. Quite specifically, the concept of culture is tied to that of society. Each society has its own culture, its own arts, its own music. People in a society have definite conceptions of what rules govern behavior toward relatives, and what songs and what musical styles belong to them, and they can identify others that they also know but do not claim. Even in large, complex societies, these kinds of boundaries exist. But, in the modern world, you learn not only your own culture, but also others, and music is an important way of defining your own culture, and also of apprehending the culture of another society. And by society, I do not just mean nations, or group of people defined by a language, but also groups of people defined by social class, occupation, religion, and quite importantly, by age. If you wish to comprehend the culture of your teenage children, you may perhaps do it best by understanding the music in their lives.

This is quite obvious to music teachers, I think. Ethnomusicologists have only recently come to appreciate the importance of culture groups (societies) that live next to each other in urban societies: minorities of all sorts, the people of diasporas, artistic elites, youth, old age, you get my drift.

But, who is entitled to define what actually belongs to the culture of a people? To the music of a people? I want to tell you about an experience that I have remembered for some period of time. I was in Iran for several months, studying Persian classical music by taking lessons and also getting theoretical instruction from a great master, Dr. Nour'Ai Boroumand.

At one point, he said to me, "You know, Mr. Steflaart, you will never understand this music." I thought he was chiding me for not practicing enough, but he said, I will summarize, "You may be able to analyze it and tell us about motifs and developments and structures, but, there are things that every workman washing the windows of this building understands that will always elude you." He was outlining for me, my limitations as an outsider.

Ethnomusicologists traditionally have been the students of music from the outsider's perspective. I think, they have usually been responsible people, intellectually and politically, but, sometimes one got into curious discussions, as when a Native singer sang (perhaps recorded) a song in good faith, only to find himself or herself corrected by the fieldworker, "that is not a proper song of your people." I have to confess, Western ethnomusicologists have sometimes acted out the political aspirations of their governments, considering that the investigation of non-Western and rural societies was their proper study. Gradually, the musicians of their host societies began to say things like, why do not we undertake these studies ourselves, after all, this is the music that belongs to us, and we understand it better than you ever will.

Well, to be sure, the nations of the world have begun to produce ethnomusicologists who mainly study the local music. Actually, the idea of emphasizing one's own nation is a widespread established custom. A little over twenty years ago, at a conference of scholars from the United States and the former Soviet union, we noted the contrast. All of the Americans had done fieldwork in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. All of the Soviet scholars had worked in their own republics, but probably as outsiders. I recall, at another time, hearing Professor Oskar Elschek, a Slovak scholar who had spent his life collecting folk songs in Slovakia, saying something like: "Yes, it is my own country, but to those villagers, I am always an outsider, a cultural outsider from the big city."

So, is it best for us to stick to our own backyards? Well, we ought certainly to encourage the scholars in all nations, and, no matter where we are from, we should share whatever knowledge and techniques we have. And, speaking now as an educator, we ought to encourage the performance, development and understanding of the indigenous music of all nations. At the same time, we would do better not to give up reaching across borders.

The discipline now called Ethnomusicology was at one time named "Comparative Musicology". Not because we spent our time making comparisons to determine who has the best music, or, for that matter, comparison at all. "Comparative" was a code word for inter-cultural, or multicultural, or "from an universal perspective". The term was abandoned, partly for political reasons, and partly because the study of music in culture, the ideas about music and the uses and functions of music in each society, gradually began to outweight the interest in transcription and analysis of the music.

But, I think, it would be a mistake to give up studying the music of the "other". As scholars, a balance of the insider's and outsider's perspectives gives us the most balanced picture of the world's musics. As citizens of the world, we know that musical experiences, musical exchanges, have often been in the vanguard of inter-cultural understanding. Here, in Berlin, I do not have to give you examples. At a level of smaller populations, many Native American tribes, originally quite disparate cultures, have been drawn into an united American Indian movement, in part by the development of inter-tribal secular ceremonies known as Powwows.



F. WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ARE WE? ARE WE DOING ANYONE ANY GOOD?

My intention was to now comment on the issue of musical change, and the role of music as an expression of society and the individual. But, I have already touched on these matters. I should conclude by saying a word about us as ethnomusicologists, because I continue to think that part of my job here is to say something to you about how the minds of ethnomusicologists work. I have to ask, what kind of people are we? And are we doing anyone any good? It is probably a question that music educators also ask themselves from time to time.

Conversations I have had with people in other walks of life often begin, "what are you trying to learn?" and end with "are you doing anyone any good?"

I have touched on some of the things we are trying to learn. But, what good are we, the ethnomusicologists, doing? I could make a list of activities and accomplishments. We now have something recognized as applied Ethnomusicology, which tries to use the findings of our field to help issues of poverty, conflict, medicine, and much else. Ethnomusicologists have helped musicians in many cultures to improve their lot, creating concert tours, and teaching in institutions. In all of this, to be sure, they have had to violate a basic tenet of field research. Do everything you can to avoid disturbing the life of your hosts? Do not impose yourself on musical and social life. Of course, ultimately, that is impossible.

Well, I guess the production of knowledge is itself a good thing.  People can do with it what they wish. Hopefully, music educators have been able to use what ethnomusicologists have learned in developing their own field. In my opinion, ethnomusicologists have also developed a beneficial political attitude. It is well stated by Helen Myers in her compendium, "Ethnomusicology: An Introduction" (Myers, 1992:15-16), who defines the ethnomusicologists as the "great egalitarians of musicology". "On the one hand, each scholar is eager to defend the music of his or her own people, or the people he or she had studied, as special and unique. On the other hand, no ethnomusicologist will rank the music of his culture over that of his colleague's."

And so, while the music with which I identify myself most, the European classical music of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially Czech music, and while I have come enormously to admire the songs of Native Americans, and the classical music of Iran and South India, I can not claim that they are intrinsically, or aesthetically, or morally superior to the art and folk musics of the many nations of Asia and Africa. I firmly believe that, in certain important ways, all musics are equal. Each of the world's cultures has developed its music to serve its needs. And, as each culture undergoes modernization, it takes what it wishes or needs from other musics with which it has contact, combining, synthesizing, fusing, and all of this is the new authenticity.

Some music educators, I am particularly acquainted with the work of Patricia Campbell (Campbell, 1991), Barbara Lundquist (Lundquist and Szego, 1998), and Huib Schippers (Schippers, 2010), have looked at their own activities through an ethnomusicological lens. I think that of the various disciplines in the musical academy, music education and ethnomusicology have had a special relationships. Joint committees, joint sessions, common approaches such as the "hands-on" method of imparting musical knowledge, and lots more. We have learned a lot from each other, and we have a lot more to learn.



G. REFERENCES

Campbell, Patricia Shehan. 1991. Lessons from the World. New York: Schirmer Books.

Hornbostel, Erich M. von. 1904-05. Zeitschrift der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft.

Lundquist, Barbara and C. K. Szego. 1998. Music of the World's Cultures: A Source Book for Music Educators. Reading, United Kingdom: International Society for Music Education (ISME).

Myers, Helen (Ed.). 1992. Ethnomusicology: An Introduction. New York: Norton.

Nettl, Bruno. 1989. Blackfoot Musical Thought: Comparative Perspectives. Kent: Kent State University Press.

Nettl, Bruno. 2005. The Study of Ethnomusicology: Thirty-One Issues and Concepts. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Schippers, Huib. 2010. Facing the Music: Shaping Music Education from a Global Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thompson, Stith (Ed.). 1952. Four Symposia on Folklore. Bloomington: Indians University Press.

Tylor, Edward B. 1871. Primitive Culture. London: Murray.

HOMOSEKSUALITAS DITINJAU DARI SUDUT PANDANG SOSIOLOGI DAN REMAJA

A. PENGANTAR

Secara sosiologis, homoseksual adalah seseorang yang cenderung mengutamakan orang yang sejenis kelaminnya sebagai mitra seksual. Homoseksualitas merupakan sikap tindakan atau pola tingkah laku para homoseksual. Pria yang melakukan tindakan tersebut disebut homoseksual, sedangkan lesbian merupakan sebutan bagi wanita yang juga berbuat demikian. Yang berbeda dari homoseksual adalah trans-seksual. Trans-seksual adalah mereka yang mengalami konflik batiniah yang menyangkut identitas diri yang bertentangan dengan identitas sosial, sehingga ada kecenderungan untuk mengubah karakteristik seksualnya (Leonard Broom, Philip Selznick & Dorothy Broom Darroch, 1981).

Homoseksualitas sudah diketahui sejak lama, misalkan pada masyarakat Yunani Kuno. Di Inggris baru ditemukan pada akhir abad ke-17. Homoseksualitas tidak hanya dipandang sebagai tingkah laku seksual belaka, namun juga sebagai peranan bersifat agak rumit, yang muncul dari keinginan-keinginan maupun aktivitas dari para homoseksual (Mary McIntosh, 1968). Homoseksualitas sering terjadi antara tentara yang terlibat dalam Perang Saudara di Amerika Serikat, dan ada kelompok pria tuna susila yang mengikutinya kedalam medan perang (Wainwright Churchill, 1967).

Lazimnya, masyarakat memandang homoseksualitas sebagai suatu penyimpangan (deviance), yang tidak selalu merupakan penyelewengan (delict). Akan tetapi, tidak senantiasa demikian halnya, oleh karena menurut hasil penelitian Ford dan Breach di Amerika Serikat, sejumlah 64% dari komunitas-komunitas yang telah diteliti ternyata dapat menerima adanya homoseksualitas (Clellan S. Ford & Frank A. Beach, 1952). Penelitian yang dilakukan oleh Pomeroy terhadap 225 kelompok orang Indian mengungkapkan, bahwa lebih dari 50% menerima homoseksualitas, sedangkan 4% menolaknya (Wardell B. Pomeroy, 1969). Oleh karena itu, Bell menyatakan bahwa (R. Bell, 1976):

"Homosexuality has caused anxiety and disapproval in many cultures, but a majority of cultures have provided for some approved means of homosexual outlet and have attempted to regulate rather than to suppress homosexual behavior."

Pada masyarakat Barat, lesbianisme dikenal melalui Sappho yang hidup di pulau Lesbos pada abad ke-6 Sebelum Masehi. Dia adalah tokoh yang memperjuangkan hak-hak wanita, sehingga banyak pengikutnya. Akan tetapi, dia kemudian jatuh cinta kepada beberapa pengikutnya dan menulis puisi-puisi yang bernadakan cinta. Menurut Sappho, kecantikan wanita tidak bisa dipisahkan dari aspek seksualnya. Oleh karena itu, kepuasan seksual juga mungkin diperolehnya dari sesama wanita (Richard Lewisohn, 1958). Pengaruhnya terhadap anak dan remaja, mungkin berasal dari lingkungan sosial tertentu.

B. ASPEK HUKUM

Di Amerika Serikat, homoseksualitas dianggap sebagai tingkah laku seksual antara dua orang yang sama jenis kelaminnya. Tingkah laku tersebut mencakup saling memegang, mencium, melakukan hubungan seksual, dan seterusnya. Demikian pendapat kalangan hukum dan perundang-undangan di Amerika Serikat, walaupun pengertian homoseksualitas digambarkan dengan berbagai istilah yang berbeda. Seorang homoseksual antara orang dewasa dengan orang di bawah umur, atau antara orang-orang dewasa, yang dilakukan secara pribadi atau di muka umum, merupakan perbuatan yang dilarang oleh hukum. Mengenai hal tersebut, Schur berpendapat (Edwin M. Schur, 1965):

"the homosexual . . . has no legal outlet for the kind of sex life to which he is drawn; his only alternative to law-breaking is abstinence."

Menurut hasil penelitian yang dilakukan oleh University of California, Los Angeles, maka menurut anggapan polisi, para homoseksual dapat digolongkan kedalam tiga kategori, yaitu:

1. Golongan yang secara aktif mencari mitra kencan di tempat-tempat tertentu, seperti misalkan bar-bar homoseksual.

2. Golongan yang pasif, artinya yang menunggu.

3. Golongan situasional yang mungkin bersifat pasif atau melakukan tindakan-tindakan tertentu.

Di Indonesia, belum ada perundang-undangan yang khusus mengatur masalah-masalah homoseksual. Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (terjemahan tidak resmi dari Wetnoek van Strafrecht) dan pasal 292 yang secara eksplisit mengatur soal sikap tindak homoseksual, yang dikaitkan dengan usia di bawah umur. Isi pasal tersebut adalah sebagai berikut:

"Orang dewasa yang melakukan perbuatan cabul dengan orang lain sesama kelamin, yang diketahuinya atau sepatutnya harus diduganya belum dewasa, diancam dengan pidana penjara paling lama lima tahun."

Pasal menjadi bagian dari bab tentang kejahatan terhadap kesusilaan. Dalam hal ini, tidak ditemukan apakah perbuatan tersebut dilakukan oleh pria atau wanita, sehingga dapat disimpulkan berlaku baik bagi homoseksual maupun lesbian. Dari pasal tersebut juga dapat ditarik kesimpulan, bahwa yang dilarang adalah "perbuatan cabul" kepada orang yang belum dewasa yang sama jenis kelaminnya. Artinya, perbuatannya yang dilarang yang dikaitkan dengan belum dewasanya (calon) korban.

Apabila perundang-undangan yang ada, baik di Amerika Serikat maupun contoh yang telah disebutkan di Indonesia, ditafsirkan secara sosiologis, maka sebenarnya perundang-undangan tersebut merupakan suatu bentuk konkretisasi tabu-tabu terhadap sikap tindak homoseksual sebagaimana ditetapkan oleh adat-istiadat, agama, dan seterusnya. Dalam hal ini, hukum tidak secara tegas melarang homoseksualitas, misalnya, dalam hal peranannya, kecuali apabila ada perbuatan-perbuatan yang dianggap melanggar kesusilaan.

C. TITIK TOLAK PENJELASAN SOSIOLOGIS

Penjelasan secara sosiologis mengenai homoseksualitas bertitik tolak pada asumsi bahwa tidak ada pembawaan lain pada dorongan seksual, selain kebutuhan untuk menyalurkan ketegangan. Oleh karena itu, maka baik tujuan maupun obyek dorongan seksual diarahkan oleh faktor sosial. Artinya, arah penyaluran ketegangan dipelajari dari pengalaman-pengalaman sosial. Dengan demikian, tidak ada pola seksual alamiah, oleh karena yang ada adalah pola pemuasnya yang dipelajari dari adat-istiadat dalam sebuah lingkungan sosial. Lingkungan sosial akan menunjang atau mungkin menghalangi sikap dan tindakan dorongan-dorongan seksual tertentu.

Seseorang menjadi homoseksual, oleh karena pengaruh orang-orang disekitarnya. Sikap dan tindakannya yang kemudian menjadi pola seksualnya dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang dominan, sehingga menentukan segi-segi kehidupan lainnya. Oleh karena itu, Simon dan Gagnon pernah menyatakan bahwa (William Simon & John H. Gagnon, 1967):

"This prepossessing concern on the part of homosexuals with the purely sexual aspect of the homosexual's life is something we would not allow to occur if we were interested in the heterosexual."

Pandangan-pandangan sosiologis menyatakan, sebagaimana disinggung di awal, bahwa homoseksualitas merupakan suatu peranan. Oleh karena itu, walaupun derajat atau status keterikatannya terhadap aspek seksual berbeda-beda, homoseksualitas sebagai peranan mengakibatkan terjadinya sebuah proses penamaan (labelling) tertentu terhadap gejala tersebut (Naming-Process). Proses penamaan tersebut tidak hanya terjadi pada homoseksualitas, akan tetapi juga terhadap gejala-gejala lainnya, yang oleh masyarakat dianggap sebagai sebuah penyimpangan (walaupun tidak selalu ditolak secara mutlak). Proses penamaan tersebut sebenarnya merupakan suatu sarana pengendalian sosial karena:

1. Memberikan patokan mengenai sikap dan tindakan yang diperbolehkan dan yang dilarang.

2. Membatasi sikap dan tindakan menyimpang dalam kelompok-kelompok tertentu.

Oleh karena itu, pembenaran yang biasanya diberikan oleh kalangan homoseksual adalah, bahwa mereka tidak dapat kembali pada pola kehidupan yang dianggap normal oleh masyarakat. Dengan demikian, dapat dikatakan bahwa aspek-aspek pokok homoseksualitas menurut pandangan sosiologis adalah sebagai berikut (R. Bell, 1976):

". . . first, that there exists in some people a homosexual propensity that varies quantitatively in different individuals and can also vary quantitatively in the same person at different stages in his life cycle; and second, that this propensity can influence behavior in several ways, some of which are not clearly sexual, although exactly how much and in what ways are matters for disagreement and dispute among experts."

Atas dasar pandangan sosiologis tersebut, maka untuk mengetahui faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan timbulnya homoseksualitas dan prosesnya, diperlukan sebuah uraian mengenai kebudayaan khususnya. Hal ini menyebabkan, oleh karena titik tolak pandangan sosiologis adalah, bahwa homoseksualitas merupakan sebuah peranan.

D. KEBUDAYAAN KHUSUS HOMOSEKSUALITAS

Secara sosiologis, kebudayaan diartikan sebagai semua hasil karya, cipta dan rasa yang didasarkan pada karsa. Hasil karya merupakan bagian dari kebudayaan materiil, sedangkan hasil-hasil cipta dan rasa merupakan bagian dari kebudayaan imateriil.

Lazimnya, dalam suatu masyarakat berlaku suatu kebudayaan yang bersifat umum, yang disebut Super-Culture. Kebudayaan yang bersifat umum tersebut mencakup bagian-bagian khusus yang disebut Culture. Misalnya, kebudayaan Indonesia merupakan Super-Culture, sedangkan kebudayaan suku atau kebudayaan daerah merupakan Culture. Oleh karena faktor-faktor tertentu, maka dalam Culture mungkin timbul kebudayaan-kebudayaan khusus yang disebut Sub-Culture. Kebudayaan khusus tersebut adalah, misalkan, kebudayaan khusus kalangan profesional. Namun perlu dicatat, bahwa kebudayaan khusus tersebut tidak selalu serasi dengan Culture, dan adakalanya timbul kebudayaan khusus yang bertentangan dengan Culture. Kebudayaan khusus tersebut disebut sebagai Counter-Culture.

Counter-Culture merupakan suatu kebudayaan khusus yang oleh masyarakat dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang bertentangan, atau setidaknya dianggap menyimpang dari nilai-nilai dan kaedah-kaedah yang dianut oleh masyarakat secara umum. Dengan demikian, yang dianuti adalah pola-pola yang dianggap merupakan suatu deviansi atau penyimpangan. Mengenai hal tersebut, K. T. Erikson pernah menyatakan sebagai berikut (K. T. Erikson, 1966):

"From a sociological standpoint, deviance can be defined as conduct which is generally thought to require the attention of social control agencies-that is, conduct about which "something should be done". Deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of behavior; it is the property conferred upon these forms by the audiences directly or indirectly witness them. Sociologically, then the oritical variable in the study of deviance is the social audience rather than the individual person, since it is the audience which eventually decides whether or not any given action or actions will become a visible case of deviation."

Dengan demikian, dapat dikatakan bahwa apakah sebuah kebudayaan khusus merupakan Sub-Culture atau Counter-Culture ditentukan oleh masyarakat yang mendukung Super-Culture. Oleh karena agak sulit untuk menetapkan atau menjelaskan adanya penyimpangan, semata-mata dalam hubungan sebab-akibat yang sederhana. Mengenai hal tersebut, K. T. Erikson menyatakan bahwa (K. T. Erikson, 1964):

"Sometimes there is a bilogical anomaly, sometimes a disrupted home, sometimes bad companions, sometimes too little legitimate opportunity, sometimes too much pressure, and so on."

Jika hal tersebut dihubungkan dengan homoseksualitas dan lesbianisme, maka secara sosiologis agak sulit untuk mengungkapkan sebab-sebabnya secara pasti, oleh karena, walaupun secara sosiologis ada dugaan kuat bahwa hal tersebut disebabkan oleh lingkungan sosial tertentu, akan tetapi lingkungan sosial tertentu juga memiliki banyak aspek. Bell memberikan kemungkinan-kemungkinan sebagai berikut (R. Bell, 1976):

"Very often people become deviants because they have little control or no control over the situation. A person may be a member of a deviant social group because he was socialized to it or because he was in a particular social setting at a given time . . . However, in most societies there are also people who "choose" a deviant career because they know it offends an important value of a broader society or because they have a need to challenge some dominant values."

Hal-hal yang dijelaskan oleh Bell senantiasa ada dalam setiap masyarakat, sehingga penyimpangan memang merupakan suatu gejala yang selalu timbul dalam masyarakat. Misalnya adalah, sampai sejauh manakah masyarakat dapat memberikan toleransi terhadap penyimpangan-penyimpangan tersebut. Lagipula, tolak ukur toleransi itupun tidak statis, akan tetapi senantiasa bergerak. Misalnya, dahulu di Amerika Serikat, homoseksualitas maupun lesbianisme di muka umum sama sekali tidak dapat diterima. Oleh karena itu, mereka melakukan kegiatan-kegiatannya secara sembunyi-sembunyi, untuk menghindarkan diri dari kritik-kritik yang mendiskriminasi. Salah satu akibatnya adalah, bahwa dewasa ini mereka menjadi agresif, oleh karena mereka beranggapan bahwa penyaluran dorongan-dorongan seksual dan tingkah lakunya merupakan salah satu hak asasi manusia. Dengan timbulnya gejala tersebut, masyarakat secara umum secara perlahan lebih bersikap lunak terhadap mereka.

Counter-Culture mungkin muncul, apabila orang-orang yang dianggap menyimpang oleh masyarakat, berinteraksi dalam frekuensi yang tinggi. Dengan tingkat frekuensi interaksi sosial yang tinggi serta bertambahnya "anggota" maka lama kelamaan terbentuklah suatu kelompok yang mendukung nilai-nilai atau kaedah-kaedah tertentu, sehingga menjadi suatu kebudayaan khusus. Rubington dan Weinberg berpendapat, bahwa kebudayaan khusus tersebut akan terus berkembang apabila timbul:

". . . common understanding and prescribed ways of thinking, feeling, and acting when in the company of one's own deviant peers and when dealing with representatives of the conventional world. Once these deviant subcultures come into being and flourish, they have consequences for their bearers and conventional outsiders as well." (Earl Rubington & Martin S. Weinberg, 1968)

Dengan demikian, maka muncul dan berkembangnya suatu kebudayaan khusus adalah, apabila terjadi frekuensi interaksi tinggi yang bertujuan untuk memecahkan masalah-masalah yang sama-sama dihadapi. Kondisi-kondisi yang mendukung berkembangnya kebudayaan khusus adalah diterimanya nilai-nilai dan kaedah-kaedah yang memberikan pandangan dan patokan mengenai tingkah laku yang baik dan buruk, serta mana yang diperbolehkan dan yang dilarang.

Hal di atas juga berlaku bagi kebudayaan khusus homoseksualitas. Kebudayaan khusus tersebut mencakup kelompok tertentu yang mendukungnya, kelompok mana yang merupakan sebuah in-group, yang melakukan kegiatan-kegiatan sejenis. Mereka mengembangkan nilai-nilai dan kaedah-kaedah khusus yang berlaku bagi mereka. Mereka tidak menutup diri terhadap kegiatan-kegiatan sosial di luar kelompok tersebut, akan tetapi membatasi diri pada keterlibatan aktivitas yang mendukung nilai-nilai dan kaedah-kaedah homoseksualitas. Para homoseksual menganggap menurut aturan yang dianut oleh kalangan heteroseksual. Akan tetapi, perlu dicatat bahwa tidak semua tipe kalangan homoseksual merupakan pendukung kebudayaan khusus homoseksual. Kalangan-kalangan tersebut, menurut Hooker adalah (Evelyn Hooker, 1965):

1. Klik-klik yang terdiri dari para homoseksual yang mempunyai istri wanita, atau yang mempunyai istri sesama homoseksual.

2. Kelompok-kelompok besar yang tidak begitu ketat strukturnya yang mencakup kelompok-kelompok kecil yang tersebar.

3. Homoseksual yang mengadakan pertemuan-pertemuan secara insidental.

Memang ada homoseksual yang tidak menerima kebudayaan khusus homoseksual, oleh karena (Carrol A. Warren, 1974):

"Some men regard the gay community as too isolated from the rest of the world; others, like gay liberationists, regard it as too secretive. Still others see it as culturally impovershed and intellectually arid, and some do not like the stigma attached to membership."

Dengan demikian, dapat dikatakan bahwa secara sosiologis, maka lingkungan sosial memberikan bentuk pada sikap dan tindakan homoseksual. Apabila hipotesis yang menyatakan bahwa setiap manusia mempunyai naluri sebagai homoseksual, maka lingkunganlah yang memungkinkan berkembangnya naluri tersebut, atau mematikannya. Bagi kalangan homoseksual, hal ini antara lain, berarti perubahan peranan yang disandangnya. Namun, perubahan peranan tersebut, terutama disebabkan karena kebutuhan penyaluran kebutuhan seksual.

Pada kalangan lesbian, maka dorongan utamanya adalah pada kasih sayang. Oleh karena itu, menurut beberapa penelitian yang pernah dilakukan di Amerika Serikat, lesbianisme lebih banyak terjadi di lembaga-lembaga pemasyarakatan, apabila dibandingkan dengan homoseksualitas yang terjadi di kalangan narapidana pria di lembaga pemasyarakatan. Lagipula, karena faktor kasih sayang tersebut, lesbianisme cenderung terjadi secara temporer, oleh karena sama sekali tidak menyangkut perubahan peranan dalam diri wanita yang bersangkutan. Oleh karena itu, dapat dikatakan bahwa lesbianisme terjadi dalam konteks interpersonal.

E. PENUTUP

Penjelasan mengenai homoseksualitas secara ringkas di atas memang tidak didukung oleh data empiris yang berasal dari Indonesia. Memang di Indonesia belum pernah diadakan penelitian mengenai masalah tersebut secara luas, kecuali mungkin bentuk karya ilmiah di Perguruan Tinggi atau Universitas.

Di atas telah dijelaskan beberapa faktor sosial yang memberikan situasi yang membuka peluang terjadinya homoseksualitas. Hal ini dilihat dari sudut pandangan proses interaksi yang dilakukan dalam frekuensi yang relatif tinggi.

Dorongan yang kuat untuk menyimpang, antara lain dalam bentuk homoseksualitas, adalah reaksi negatif terhadap kedudukan dan peranan yang diberikan oleh lingkungan sosial kepada seseorang. Hal ini disebabkan, karena adanya keyakinan bahwa moralitas tidak memberikan kesempatan kepada individu untuk membentuk kepribadiannya sendiri, atau setidaknya ikut berperan membentuk kepribadian tersebut. Terkadang hal tersebut disebabkan oleh ketegangan-ketegangan yang timbul sebagai akibat pertentangan antara berbagai kelas sosial dalam masyarakat yang terbentuk dalam proses stratifikasi sosial. Di negara-negara Barat tertentu, homoseksualitas timbul karena adanya dorongan yang sangat kuat yang terkadang menjadi akses untuk mengadakan persamaan kedudukan dan peranan antara wanita dengan pria. Kegiatan-kegiatan ini terkadang menghasilkan situasi yang proporsional bagi kaum pria.

F. DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Bell, R. 1976. Social Deviance: A Substantive Analysis. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press.

Broom, Leonard, Philip Selznick, Dorothy Broom Darroch. 1981. Sociology: A Text with Adapted Readings. New York: Harper & Row.

Churchill, Wainwright. 1967. Homosexual Behavior Among Males. New York: Hawthorn Books.

Erikson, Kai, T. 1964. The Other Side Perspectives on Deviance. New York: Free Press.

Erikson, Kai, T. 1966. A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Wiley.

Ford, Cicilan, S., Frank A. Beach. 1952. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York: Harper.