Examining the Phrase 'Rakyat Jelata': through McLuhan’s and Derrida’s Framework - "Quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger"

Abstract

https://lnkd.in/gd7z6eiZ

This article applies Marshall McLuhan’s dictum, “the medium is the message,” alongside Jacques Derrida’s post-structuralist framework, particularly his concept of deconstruction, to analyze the responsibilities of teachers, speakers, and preachers in their use of language. McLuhan’s insights into the impact of the medium on perception and Derrida’s exploration of the instability of meaning, the influence of power dynamics, and the ethical responsibilities of communication are combined to provide practical guidelines for more inclusive and reflective discourse. The analysis explores the instability of meaning, the influence of power dynamics, and the ethical responsibilities of communication to provide practical guidelines for more inclusive and reflective discourse. It emphasizes the need for language sensitivity, feedback mechanisms, and critical reflection in addressing the challenges of interpretation and the co-construction of meaning in public communication.?

Background and Introduction

The recent controversy involving a high-ranking spokesperson for the Presidential Communication Office of Indonesia highlights the complexities of language use by public figures. The spokesperson faced criticism for using the term rakyat jelata to describe citizens. While the term literally translates to "common people," its perceived connotations of hierarchy and marginalization sparked public backlash. The spokesperson's reference to the dictionary to justify the use of the term revealed significant room for improvement in communication skills, as well as in demonstrating compassion and accountability. This incident underscores the importance of mindful communication by those in authority and forms a practical case study for exploring Derrida’s framework on language, power, and meaning (CNN Indonesia, 2024).

Marshall McLuhan’s famous dictum,

“the medium is the message,”

offers a compelling lens for understanding the rakyat jelata controversy. McLuhan emphasized that the medium through which a message is delivered shapes its impact, often more than the content itself. In this case, the spokesperson’s role as a high-ranking official and the public nature of her statement served as the medium that amplified the perception of her words. Regardless of intent, the term rakyat jelata—spoken by someone in authority—was interpreted as reinforcing societal hierarchies. This interplay between medium and message set the stage for public backlash.

Building on McLuhan’s insights, Jacques Derrida’s framework on language and meaning deepens the analysis. Derrida’s concepts of deconstruction, iterability, and power dynamics allow for a nuanced exploration of how words like rakyat jelata carry fluid meanings shaped by context, history, and power structures. Together, these perspectives reveal the complexities of public communication and underscore the responsibilities of those in authority.

Derrida’s Framework for Language Analysis

A key nuance in understanding the rakyat jelata controversy is recognizing that the term itself might not inherently offend the individuals it describes. Many within the group may embrace it as a neutral or even identity-affirming label, akin to the proletariat. However, when used by someone in a position of authority, such as a high-ranking official, the term’s meaning can shift. The context, the speaker's positionality, and the medium through which it is delivered amplify its connotations, often creating unintended perceptions of hierarchy or condescension. These dynamics underscore the importance of Derrida’s insights into the instability of meaning and McLuhan’s emphasis on how the medium shapes the message.

1. Deconstruction of Meaning Derrida’s deconstruction reveals that meaning is not inherent or stable but contingent on context, audience, and power relations.

Words do not carry a singular, objective meaning; rather, they acquire significance through their interaction with other words and the circumstances of their use (Derrida, 1978).

A term such as rakyat jelata may seem neutral in isolation but gains complex connotations when uttered in specific socio-political contexts.

2. Binary Oppositions and Hierarchies Derrida’s critique of binary oppositions—such as elite/common or superior/inferior—reveals how these structures embed power.

Words like rakyat jelata might be interpreted as positioning the speaker above the addressed group, even if unintended.

This hierarchical reading could provoke resentment or feelings of being demeaned, despite the speaker’s intention.

3. Iterability and the Trace Derrida’s concept of iterability suggests that every use of language invokes prior contexts and meanings while simultaneously generating new interpretations.

Trace refers to the lingering effects of past uses of a term, which shape its current understanding (Derrida, 1982).

For example, a term like rakyat jelata may evoke associations with class hierarchies or marginalization, depending on historical and cultural memory.

4. Challenging the Accusation of Defamation Derrida’s approach could help dismantle the accusation by showing that the meaning of rakyat jelata is not fixed. It depends on who interprets it and how.

The speaker’s intent, the audience’s reaction, and the socio-political climate all contribute to its meaning.

By highlighting these layers of ambiguity, the defamation claim could be reframed as a misreading rather than a clear-cut offense.

5. Power and Positionality Language operates within power dynamics, reflecting and reinforcing hierarchies (Derrida, 1998).

A speaker’s authority amplifies the potential impact of their words.

For instance, a government official using rakyat jelata may inadvertently emphasize societal divisions, regardless of intent.

6. The Role of the Audience Derrida highlights the co-construction of meaning between speaker and audience.

Meaning arises from interaction, and gaps (aporia) in understanding are inevitable due to differing contexts and interpretations (Caputo, 1997).

7. The Ethics of Language For Derrida, language carries an ethical dimension, as speakers are responsible for anticipating how their words might be received (Critchley, 1992).

Ethical communication involves minimizing harm and avoiding language that perpetuates stereotypes or alienates individuals.

8. Differance (Difference and Deferral) Derrida’s concept of differance describes how meaning is constantly deferred, never fully settled, as words derive meaning through their relational network (Derrida, 1967).

This creates opportunities for reinterpretation and dialogue.

Practical Applications for Public Communication

1. Language Sensitivity Before using specific terms, communicators should assess their connotations within the relevant cultural and social contexts. For example, a preacher addressing diverse congregations should avoid language that might unintentionally alienate certain groups.
2. Feedback Mechanisms Effective communication requires two-way interaction. Teachers can use classroom discussions to clarify ambiguous terms, while preachers and speakers can create opportunities for audience engagement to address misunderstandings.
3. Power Awareness Recognizing the influence of authority on language reception is crucial. High-ranking officials or educators should strive for humility and inclusivity to counterbalance hierarchical perceptions.
4. Critical Reflection Regularly reflecting on language choices is essential to align communication with ethical principles. For instance, using collective pronouns like we instead of you can foster a sense of unity.
5. Flexibility and Adaptation Misinterpretation is inevitable. Communicators must remain open to clarifying or adapting their language to address audience concerns, demonstrating a commitment to mutual understanding.

Conclusion

Derrida’s post-structuralist insights offer a valuable framework for teachers, speakers, and preachers to navigate the complexities of language. By understanding the instability of meaning, the influence of power, and the ethical dimensions of communication, public communicators can foster more inclusive and reflective discourse. As the Good Book reminds us,

"Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" (James 1:19).

This serves as a profound reminder to weigh words carefully in all forms of public communication.

Additionally, the proverb

"In the multitude of words, sin is not lacking" (Proverbs 10:19)

highlights the potential pitfalls of unchecked communication, reinforcing the need for mindfulness and intentionality. By integrating these spiritual insights with the theoretical frameworks of Derrida and McLuhan, this approach not only mitigates misunderstandings but also promotes dialogue and mutual respect, ensuring that language serves as a bridge rather than a barrier.

References

Caputo, J. D. (1997). Deconstruction in a nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida. Fordham University Press.

Critchley, S. (1992). The ethics of deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas. Blackwell.

CNN Indonesia. (2024, December 5). Jubir PCO minta maaf ucap 'rakyat jelata' saat respons polemik Miftah. Retrieved from https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20241205230048-32-1174278/jubir-pco-minta-maaf-ucap-rakyat-jelata-saat-respons-polemik-miftah

Derrida, J. (1967). Of grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy. University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J. (1998). Monolingualism of the other: Or, the prosthesis of origin. Stanford University Press.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.