Pluralitas Agama dalam Keluarga Jawa

Dalam masyarakat Jawa terdapat pemahaman dan pemaknaan sendiri terhadap agama yaitu â€agami ageming ajiâ€. Artinya apa pun agama yang dipeluk sama saja karena semua agama mengajarkan keselamatan. Oleh sebab itu menjadi sebuah fenomena menarik di kalangan masyarakat Jawa karena mereka cenderung lebih toleran dalam menyikapi perbedaaan dan keragaman beragama. Salah satu contoh masyarakat yang menghargai pluralitas agama adalah masyarakat Desa Getas Kaloran Temanggung. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan tentang sejumlah keluarga yang dapat menerima pluralitas agama dan toleransi terhadap pluralitas agama dalam keluarga Jawa. Tulisan ini merupakan hasil penelitian yang menggunakan pendekatan deskriptif kualitatif. Subyek penelitian adalah masyarakat Desa Getas yang memiliki keragaman agama dalam keluarganya. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa masyarakat Desa Getas dapat menerima pluralitas agama karena menurut mereka agama adalah urusan pribadi seseorang jadi tidak ada pihak yang dapat memaksakan suatu keyakinan kepada individu lain. Pluralitas agama tersebut tidak menimbulkan masalah berarti karena masyarakat memiliki derajat toleransi yang tinggi antar anggota keluarga, yang ditunjukkan melalui saling menghargai dan mengormati dan tidak mencampuri urusan keagamaan orang lain, serta saling membantu antar anggota keluarga untuk memperlancar kegiatan ibadah masing – masing. In Javanese community there is a specific principle on the meaning of religion, namely â€agami ageming ajiâ€. This pilosophy means whatever religion people believe, it doesn’t matter because they all teach salvation. This is an interesting phenomenon among the Javanese community because they tend to be tolerant in dealing with differences and diversity of religion that happen in one household. The objective of this article is to discuss the practices of religious tolerance found in a rural community of Getas, Kaloran, Temanggung Central Java. Techniques of data collection is done by interviews and observation. The study subjects were villagers of Getas, which has a diversity of religion in families. Based on the research results, it can be concluded that the villagers embrace a tradition of religious pluralism because they think religion is one’s personal affairs so that no party can impose a conviction for another individual. The plurality of religion does not cause significant problems because the public has a high degree of tolerance among family members, which is demonstrated through mutual respect and attitude not to interfere in religious affairs of others, and mutual help among family members to facilitate the worship activities of their relatives

Messiness of forest governance:How technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+ and conservation projects

Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) was originally conceived to address the global problem of climate change by reducing deforestation and forest degradation at national and subnational levels in developing countries. Since its inception, REDD+ proponents have increasingly had to adapt global ideas to local demands, as the rollout process was met with on-the-ground realities, including suspicion and protest. As is typical in aid or ‘development’ projects conceived in the global North, most of the solutions advanced to improve REDD+ tend to focus on addressing issues of justice (or ‘fairness’) in distributive terms, rather than addressing more inherently political objections to REDD+ such as those based on rights or social justice. Using data collected from over 700 interviews in five countries with both REDD+ and non-REDD+ cases, we argue that the failure to incorporate political notions of justice into conservation projects such as REDD+ results in ‘messiness’ within governance systems, which is a symptom of injustice and illegitimacy. We find that, first, conservation, payment for ecosystem services, and REDD+ project proponents viewed problems through a technical rather than political lens, leading to solutions that focused on procedures, such as ‘benefit distribution.’ Second, focusing on the technical aspects of interventions came at the expense of political solutions such as the representation of local people's concerns and recognition of their rights. Third, the lack of attention to representation and recognition justices resulted in illegitimacy. This led to messiness in the governance systems, which was often addressed in technical terms, thereby perpetuating the problem. If messiness is not appreciated and addressed from appropriate notions of justice, projects such as REDD+ are destined to fail

Toward conservational anthropology: addressing anthropocentric bias in anthropology

Anthropological literature addressing conservation and development often blames 'conservationists' as being neo-imperialist in their attempts to institute limits to commercial activities by imposing their post-materialist eco-ideology. The author argues that this view of conservationists is ironic in light of the fact that the very notion of 'development' is arguably an imposition of the (Western) elites. The anthropocentric bias in anthropology also permeates constructivist ethnographies of human-animal 'interactions,' which tend to emphasize the socio-cultural complexity and interconnectivity rather than the unequal and often extractive nature of this 'interaction.' Anthropocentrism is argued to be counteractive to reconciling conservationists' efforts at environmental protection with the traditional ontologies of the interdependency of human-nature relationship

Pluralism, paralysis, practice: making environmental knowledge usable

ABSTRACTIn recent years, the global environmental science-policy interface has come to include a greater variety of knowledge. Social scientists have joined natural scientists at the policy table, and Indigenous and local knowledge is being taken ever more seriously. But this pluralisation raises political, normative, and epistemic challenges for environmental expert organisations, including with respect to how knowledge is managed, how it is judged to be valid, how it is made policy-relevant, and how it is presented to policy-makers and decision-takers. Based on an interview study of experts involved in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), we identify three broad approaches to these challenges: the integrationist logic, which seeks to combine all knowledge into a single ontology; the parallelist, which looks for similarities and connections between irreconcilable ontologies; and the pragmatist, which strives to apply knowledge when and where it will have the greatest positive impact. Rather than champion any one of these approaches, the paper explores their origins and how they negotiate paralyses to the timeliness of work. In avoiding ultimate formalisation of how value and knowledge pluralism are to be handled, IPBES allow more contextually sensitive practices to come to the fore. The paper concludes by discussing implications for environmental expertise more broadly