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

Education for sustainable development (ESD): the turn away from ‘environment’ in environmental education?

This article explores the implications of the shift of environmental education (EE) towards education for sustainable development (ESD) in the context of environmental ethics. While plural perspectives on ESD are encouraged both by practitioners and researchers of EE, there is also a danger that such pluralism may sustain dominant political ideologies and consolidated corporate power that obscure environmental concerns. Encouraging plural interpretations of ESD may in fact lead ecologically ill-informed teachers and students acculturated by the dominant neo-liberal ideology to underprivilege ecocentric perspective. It is argued that ESD, with its focus on human welfare, equality, rights and fair distribution of resources is a radical departure from the aim of EE set out by the Belgrade Charter as well as a distinct turn towards anthropocentrically biased education. This article has two aims: to demonstrate the importance of environmental ethics for EE in general and ESD in particular and to argue in favour of a return to instrumentalism, based on the twinned assumptions that the environmental problems are severe and that education of ecologically minded students could help their resolution

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

Whose environment? Which perspective? A critical approach to hazardous waste management in Sweden

Starting with a description of six general interpretations of this kind of hazardous waste siting, and with a description of the policy for hazardous waste management in Sweden, the author examines the decisionmaking process regarding the siting of the central plant for hazardous waste in Sweden. The paper ends with the conclusion that a locational conflict is to be seen mainly as a struggle concerning the perception and definition of the issue. Thus the question is which perspective on the issue and what definition of the suitability had predominance in respect of the choice of site.

Conclusions: a proposal for a brave new world of conceptual reflexivity

[Extract] "Your beliefs become your thoughts, your thoughts become your words, your words become your action, your actions become your destiny" These verses from Mahatma Gandhi largely capture the premise for this volume, althought we might replace 'your' with a collective 'our', and emphasize the bi-directional relations between the verses. Environmental social scientists must work proactively to facilitate learning, by acknowledging and enabling the knowledgeable, competent, and reflexive efforts by a variety of actors in our contemporary, global society. Learning for environmental change will have to engage all levels and spheres of society, confronting issues of structural inertia, cultural ignorance and conflicting societal interests. Crucial questions entail how individual and collective actors, lay persons and experts, develop the reflexive capability to promote change, and counteract structural and cultural forces that prevent change