Antropologi Islam dan posisi penelitiThe anthropology of Islam and the researcher's position
Ketika Islam menjadi objek antropologi, muncul dua persoalan mendasar: apa sebenarnya yang dikaji, dan siapa yang berwenang mengkajinya. Ronald Lukens-Bull menunjuk masalah definisi: praktik lokal, teks dan standar universal, atau sesuatu yang lain. Pertanyaan tentang kemampuan non-Muslim memahami Islam, yang juga diajukan Fazlur Rahman, serta jarak yang tepat antara antropolog dan objeknya tetap terbuka. Di sisi lain, sarjana dari luar perguruan tinggi Islam telah melahirkan sosiologi Islam, sosiologi agama, antropologi Islam, dan Islamic anthropology.
When Islam becomes the object of anthropology, two basic problems arise: what exactly is being studied, and who is qualified to study it. Ronald Lukens-Bull points to the problem of definition: local practices, universal texts and standards, or something else. Questions about non-Muslims' capacity to understand Islam, also raised by Fazlur Rahman, and about the right distance between anthropologist and subject remain open. Meanwhile, scholars outside Islamic universities have produced the sociology of Islam, the sociology of religion, the anthropology of Islam and Islamic anthropology.
Lukens-Bull menyebut studi antropologis tentang Islam ‘dirundung’ masalah definisi. Jawaban yang tersirat adalah bahwa antropologi terutama menelaah praktik lokal yang dijalankan masyarakat, lalu memahaminya secara mendalam sebagai sistem simbol yang bermakna. Teks universal dan standar praktik pun dapat dikaji, yakni dari cara umat memahami pedoman untuk menjadi Muslim yang baik. Keduanya dapat diamati dalam kehidupan sehari-hari, sehingga antropologi mampu menyingkap secara perlahan bagaimana praktik keagamaan dijalankan di suatu tempat dan, seperti dilakukan Bowen dan Geertz, membandingkannya dengan tempat lain.
Persoalan kedua bersifat posisional. Bagaimana mutu analisis etnografis bila penelitinya bukan Muslim? Bagaimana jika komunitas berupaya menarik peneliti masuk Islam? Seberapa jauh jarak yang tepat antara antropolog dan yang ditelitinya? Pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini tidak dijawab tuntas, tetapi diletakkan sebagai problem yang sah, sejalan dengan keraguan Fazlur Rahman tentang kemampuan non-Muslim memahami Islam.
Ironi yang disorot adalah bahwa kajian ilmu sosial tentang masyarakat Islam justru lebih banyak dikerjakan peneliti tanpa latar keilmuan Islam, sementara peneliti di UIN, IAIN, dan STAIN masih bergulat dengan dilema antara iman dan tanggung jawab akademik. Lahirnya sosiologi Islam dan antropologi Islam dari perkawinan teori sosial dengan kajian Islam menjadi tantangan bagi mereka.
Bagi studi Aceh, pokok soal ini menyentuh jantung pembentukan disiplin: pengetahuan tentang Aceh lama dihasilkan dari luar, dan kini dituntut lahir juga dari peneliti Aceh sendiri yang menguasai baik teori sosial maupun tradisi keislaman.
Lukens-Bull describes the anthropological study of Islam as ‘plagued’ by problems of definition. The implied answer is that anthropology chiefly examines the local practices people perform and seeks to understand them in depth as meaningful symbol systems. Universal texts and standards of practice can also be studied, through how Muslims understand the guidance for being a good Muslim. Both are visible in daily life, so anthropology can gradually reveal how religion is practised in a given place and, as Bowen and Geertz did, compare it with elsewhere.
The second problem is positional. What is the quality of ethnographic analysis when the researcher is not Muslim? What if the community tries to draw the researcher into Islam? What is the proper distance between anthropologist and subject? These questions are not settled but are posed as legitimate problems, in line with Fazlur Rahman's doubts about non-Muslims' ability to understand Islam.
The irony highlighted is that social-scientific work on Muslim societies has been done mostly by researchers without training in Islamic learning, while scholars at Indonesia's state Islamic universities still wrestle with the dilemma between faith and academic responsibility. The emergence of the sociology and anthropology of Islam from the marriage of social theory and Islamic studies is a challenge to them.
For Aceh studies the issue touches the heart of disciplinary formation: knowledge about Aceh was long produced from outside, and it is now expected also to come from Acehnese researchers versed in both social theory and the Islamic tradition.
Gagasan kunciKey ideas
Masalah definisiThe definitional problem
Praktik lokal atau teks universal: keduanya dapat dikaji melalui kehidupan sehari-hari umat.Local practice or universal text: both can be studied through believers' everyday life.
Masalah posisiThe positional problem
Identitas dan jarak peneliti memengaruhi mutu pengetahuan etnografis.The researcher's identity and distance shape ethnographic knowledge.
Tantangan bagi kampus IslamA challenge to Islamic universities
Kajian sosial tentang Islam lebih banyak dihasilkan di luar perguruan tinggi Islam.Social research on Islam is produced mostly outside Islamic universities.
Posisi dalam kerangkaPlace in the framework
Tokoh, lembaga, dan konsep yang paling dekat dengan entri ini, beserta sifat hubungannya.The figures, institutions and concepts closest to this entry, and how they relate to it.
Pertanyaan reflektifReflective question
Apakah menjadi Muslim memberi keunggulan epistemik dalam meneliti Islam di Aceh, atau justru menciptakan titik buta baru?Does being Muslim give an epistemic advantage in studying Islam in Aceh, or does it create new blind spots?
Kutip entri ini:Cite this entry: “Antropologi Islam dan posisi peneliti”, Acehnologi — Gerbang Studi AcehAceh Studies Gateway, https://acehnologi.com/entri/antropologi-islam-dan-posisi-peneliti/