The Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Social Science and Education, ICSSED 2020, August 4-5 2020, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Research Article

Reconciliation Discourse of 1965 and Indonesian ness Reconstruction In the Post-New Order

Download165 downloads
  • @INPROCEEDINGS{10.4108/eai.4-8-2020.2302422,
        author={St.Tri Guntur Narwaya and Faruk  HT and Budiawan  Budiawan},
        title={Reconciliation Discourse of 1965 and Indonesian ness Reconstruction In the Post-New Order},
        proceedings={The Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of Social Science and Education, ICSSED 2020, August 4-5 2020, Yogyakarta, Indonesia},
        publisher={EAI},
        proceedings_a={ICSSED},
        year={2020},
        month={11},
        keywords={1965 reconciliation post-structuralist negotiations ernesto laclau discourse analysis indonesian-ness},
        doi={10.4108/eai.4-8-2020.2302422}
    }
    
  • St.Tri Guntur Narwaya
    Faruk HT
    Budiawan Budiawan
    Year: 2020
    Reconciliation Discourse of 1965 and Indonesian ness Reconstruction In the Post-New Order
    ICSSED
    EAI
    DOI: 10.4108/eai.4-8-2020.2302422
St.Tri Guntur Narwaya1,*, Faruk HT2, Budiawan Budiawan2
  • 1: Universitas Mercu Buana Yogyakarta
  • 2: Universitas Gadjah Mada
*Contact email: gunturnarwaya@yahoo.com

Abstract

This paper examines how the practice of articulation, negotiation and the contest of reconciliation discourse of 1965 influenced and was influenced by various other discursive formations, especially by the moments of the construction of “Indonesian-ness” in the post New Order' era. This study focuses on discourse analysis approach in a Post-Structural perspective developed by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. This study found important points: First, the discourse of reconciliation itself is not a discourse which is immune to various developing contest and negotiations. It’s also influenced by the tug of war of other various discourses. Second, in practice, every hegemony to interpret the reconciliation formula of 1965 is always challenged by various other competing discourses. Third, the various negotiations and contests of reconciliation cannot be separated from the relationship with the tug of war of negotiations and contest on how Indonesian-ness construction is formed, formulated and contested by various parties.