Sekilas Riwayat Pemberian Judul Kumpulan Surat Kartini: Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang

Kadang terlintas pertanyaan mengapa judul kumpulan surat Kartini dinamai begitu? Mengapa "Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang"? 

Merujuk pada sejarahnya, seperti yang diungkapkan oleh Aguk Irawan dalam bukunya "Kartini: Kisah yang Tersembunyi" (2016) bahwa judul "Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang" merupakan hasil terjemahan Armijn Pane dari Bahasa Belanda "Door Duisternis tot Licht" yang sebenarnya bukan bermakna demikian melainkan memiliki makna "dari kegelapan kepada cahaya" (Irawan, 2006). 

Bahwa juga menurut Irawan (2006) fakta demikian diatas dapat dikaitkan dengan pemahaman mengenai rasa kagum Kartini terhadap surat-surat di Al-Quran walaupun hal tersebut masihlah begitu gamang untuk disimpulkan. Pasalnya, frasa "dari kegelapan kepada cahaya" terdapat dalam surat Al-Baqarah ayat 257 yang dalam bahasa arab berbunyi "minazh zhulumati ilan nur".

Namun terlepas dari pelbagai tafsir diatas, hal yang justru menarik perhatian saya adalah fakta dimana judul kumpulan surat Kartini tersebut bukanlah murni berasal dari suara Kartini seorang. Judul tersebut diberikan oleh Nyonya Abendanon yang diambil dari salah satu syair yang dikutip Kartini yaitu "Habis malam terbitlah terang". Judul tersebutlah yang kemudian menginspirasi Pane dalam menerjemahkan "Door Duisternis tot Licht" menjadi "Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang". 

Kartini dan murid-muridnya

Jikalau dilihat dari kejauhan, tanpa didasari teori atau fakta sejarah apapun serta-merta saya seperti bisa memahami korelasinya walau hanya menyentuh bagian permukaan saja. Judul tersebut seperti nyata kuat menggambarkan harapan Kartini terhadap gerakan maju kaum perempuan Jawa, perempuan bumiputera yang khususnya hidup di masa mendatang setelah masa sang raden adjeng usai. Judul tersebut begitu tegap mewakili harapan Kartini akan perubahan besar bagi kaum perempuan Indonesia seperti jelas terukir di salah satu suratnya kepada Stella Zeehandelaar tahun 1901:


"Akan datang juga kiranya keadaan baru dalam dunia Bumiputra; kalau bukan oleh karena kami, tentu oleh karena orang lain; kemerdekaan perempuan telah terbayang-bayang di udara- sudah ditakdirkan."


Kartini meyakini dan mengharapkan itu, kemerdekaan perempuan di masa mendatang. Masa yang tidak dapat diketahui kapan namun tentulah panjang, tak lekang oleh waktu. Masa-masa dimana nama Kartini mungkin hanya akan menjadi simbol atau perangkat halus pengingat semangat emansipasi yang pernah begitu bergejolak di masa lalu. Gejolak, harapan, dan keyakinan Kartini tersebutlah yang kemudian menurut saya dapat pula layak dijadikan alasan dalam pemahaman subjektif  mengenai latar belakang pemilihan judul kumpulan surat Kartini yaitu "Habis Gelap Terbitlah Terang". 

Namun kembali lagi, pengertian saya diatas hanyalah penafsiran subjektif yang bergerak dari bentuk-bentuk pengalaman saja. Sangat boleh dipastikan bahwa setiap bentuk memiliki kelemahannya tersendiri.  



Monicha, 2018

(Pembahasan berikut diatas lahir dari proses membaca singkat buku "Kartini: Kisah yang Tersembunyi" karya Aguk Irawan MN)

Cahaya Pada Derajatnya

Aku lebih tak ingin
batasan batasan beringsut bersama
derai derai cemara
relungmu
Sungguhlah ia pandir
membasuh sadarmu

Aku lebih tak ingin
pertanyaan pertanyaan bertemu dengan
nyanyian nyanyian akar rumput
derajatmu
Sungguhlah ia lihai
meredup cahayamu

Biarlah, kita nyata dalam setiap dengar dan baca
Biarlah, kita nyata dalam setiap suara dan aksara

Biarlah, kita hidup menengguk percaya
Biarlah biarlah mengabadi



Monicha, 2018

Menyelami Waktu

Aksara lama yang sempat tak hadir.  

Aku ini manusia.

Melangkah bukan hal yang mudah untuk dilakukan. Terlebih lagi jika kaitannya dengan keabstrakan diri.

Jika ada yang bisa diungkapkan sekarang, mungkin hanyalah tentang hujan yang jatuh deras di permukaan bumi. Tentang daratan yang tak lagi bisa jadi pijakan dan tentang langit yang semakin saja melangit.

Sekarang, jika berjalan saja dirasa sulit bagaimana mungkin bisa terbang untuk sekedar menikmati awan?
Apakah yang diatas sana hanyalah fana dan yang dibawah nyata?


Monicha, 2014

Cerita yang memang Sedikit

Sedikit Cerita tentang Menulis

“Selamat pagi Bu Atwin, ini Bab 1 saya setelah diperbaiki dan direview lagi. Makasih bu, hope this one is better J” (dikirim pada 5 Juni 2014).

Kutipan tersebut tak hanya merupakan sebuah kalimat yang senantiasa saya kirimkan kepada ibu Aquarini Priyatna selaku pembimbing utama dalam penulisan skripsi, namun juga sebuah kalimat yang menandai proses pembelajaran mengenai menulis dengan hati dan kaitannya dengan tanggung jawab. Saya ingat betul ketika kali pertama saya bimbingan dengan Bu Atwin di hari Senin, beliau berkata bahwa 45 menit yang kami gunakan ketika itu terbuang sia-sia disebabkan oleh cara menulis saya yang begitu sulit dimengerti dan penulisan dalam Bahasa Indonesia yang juga buruk. Saya terkejut.

Di hari Kamis, saya bimbingan lagi dengan Bu Atwin di kantor beliau. Giliran pertama adalah Kak Nita, lalu Kak Fania yang sukses mendapatkan pujian dari Bu Atwin atas tulisannya. Lalu majulah saya yang ketika itu yakin bahwa tulisan saya juga tak kalah baik dari tulisan mereka berdua. Namun yang kemudian terjadi di ruangan itu adalah tulisan saya yang justru merakit mesin penenun hujan untuk kedua mata saya. Bu Atwin masih menolak, beliau berkata bahwa tak ada perbaikan yang signifikan. Saya panik. Saya harus kembali ke kursi tunggu, lalu berusaha kembali lagi ke Bu Atwin, namun ketika menghadap beliau, tak tahu mengapa koneksi internet buruk, lalu saya pasrah dan kemudian pipi saya basah.

Lucu memang jika diingat saya sampai menangis. Ketika itu saya menyadari betapa gawatnya situasi saya yang apabila menulis tidak dapat langsung menyentuh inti, tidak benar menggunakan tanda baca, dan tidak tepat menggunakan berbagai macam kata. Terlebih lagi baru Bab 1. Saya menyadari kebodohan tersebut dengan tangisan, namun kemudian Bu Atwin mengatakan sesuatu yang pada akhirnya memberikan perubahan besar bagi pola pikir saya mengenai menulis. Saya ingat beliau berkata bahwa menulis bukanlah ajang pamer. Beliau juga berkata bahwa menulislah dengan jujur sehingga makna tulisan dapat sampai kepada siapapun yang membacanya. Saya harus menulis dengan hati.

Mulai saat itu, saya berusaha lebih keras. Usaha saya di Bab 1 belum selesai karena harus menempuh proses kurang lebih 5 kali bolak-balik ke Bu Atwin. Namun pada tanggal 14 Agustus kemarin akhirnya saya berhasil mendapatkan nilai A untuk skripsi saya dan janji yang pernah saya ucapkan untuk bisa sedikit meringankan beban Bu Atwin pun terpenuhi.

Ibu Aquarini Priyatna, saya benar mensyukuri segala dukungan dan nasihat ibu, terutama ketika peristiwa menangis itu. Peristiwa itulah yang membuat saya sadar bahwa saya masih begitu egois dalam menulis. Terimakasih untuk selalu menginspirasi. Much love for you bu J.

Namun tak berhenti disini, 

saya juga ingin menyampaikan pesan rahasia ke Pak Ari Jogaiswara bahwa saya bangga dengan tulisan saya. Saya bahagia bisa membuat tulisan mengenai George Eliot sebagaimana rekomendasi bapak ketika oral test Critical Theory berlangsung. Saya bahagia karena Pak Ari lah yang pertama kali membimbing menulis skripsi sekitar 6 bulan lalu. Saya bahagia karena bulan April lalu Pak Ari mengetik nama saya berada di urutan pertama untuk maju pada SUJS. Saya mengucapkan terimakasih banyak kepada bapak dengan harapan bahwa Pak Ari tidak akan bertanya “kenapa?”. Thank you sir for always being that amazing.

Lalu untuk Pak Taufiq Hanafi, terimakasih banyak untuk nasihat dan masukan dari bapak agar saya lebih berhati-hati lagi ketika membahas posisi perempuan dalam novel. Terimakasih banyak telah membuat saya memikirkan lagi arti kata representasi yang senantiasa saya gunakan dalam skripsi saya. Terimakasih telah menunggu saya dan Ira selama dua juta tahun lamanya untuk bimbingan ketika itu. Terimakasih untuk sidang kemarin. Saya bahagia bisa dibimbing Pak Taufiq karena membuat banyak mahasiswi iri khusunya angkatan 2011 (this one is not serious). Thank you Pak Taufiq.

Begitu juga untuk Pak Sandya Maulana dan Ibu Linda Rachman yang telah menguji dan turut memberikan nilai kepada skripsi saya. Saya ingat betul ketika sidang ada satu pertanyaan tentang perbedaan metode dan metodelogi penelitian dari Bu Linda yang kemudian Pak Sandya bantu arahkan kepada saya. Thank you.   

Dan terakhir, selamat untuk teman-teman yang juga berhasil menempuh Sidang Skripsi dan terimakasih juga dukungan dan bantuannya selama ini! 

 Monicha Nelis  

     

   

Projection and the Lower Class Body in Purgatory

Purgatory (1953) is a play written by William Butler Yeats which only consists of two male characters in the story, Boy and his father, Old Man. The two characters are set outside from an old house which is actually the house where the young Old Man stabbed his own father using the knife he uses to cut food and to kill the Boy. Purgatory presents the different treatment of representing the class distinction not only in economy but also in gender. Boy is represented inhabiting the lower economic place while the Old Man is on the higher place. Boy is also represented only as Purgatory’s hearer while Old Man is as its speaker. Boy is placed by the play as subordinate to Old Man as if woman to man. It represents Purgatory’s another treatment of class-distinct body not only in economy but also in gender. The representation is gathered in two ways, first is done by Purgatory’s process of projection of images, and second, by Purgatory’s properties of stage. 

Old Man’s head which is operated as the play’s images projector signifies his power of control. It can be seen on the play that Old Man’s voices dominate the whole plot. The story goes as well as Old Man speaks about his own story. He projects his whole body and soul not only to Purgatory’s audiences but also to Purgatory’s entire theatrical sphere (to the house, tree, and windows) which I argue as one of the aspects of discriminating “the silent Boy” as Purgatory’s lower body. It is Old Man who projects his voice to Boy who can only follow and even absorbs the voices, as writes Breen (1989) “talking and seeing, not listening, determine the father's (Old Man) relation to his son (Boy)” (51). It is indeed that Boy is also given the voices too in speaking but not for showing his independence and existence, but rather to speak for echoing the image which is projected by Old Man. In replying to Old Man’s image projection to Boy about “…come to sixteen years old my father burned down the house when drunk” (432), Boy is presented as a mimic of the Old Man in the same term of “almost the same but not quite” (Bhabha 1949). Boy tries to be the same as the Old Man by replying “but that is my age, sixteen years old,” (ibid) which signifies that the way Purgatory projecting its images supplies Old Man’s autonomy power in Purgatory.

Boy who plays the role only as an Old Man’s dark side reflection also represents how Purgatory deal with the class distinction. Old Man holds a power in projecting his father’s image to Boy by assuming that Boy will be the same as his father if he gives him the money (434). This scene of Boy’s failures in taking Old Man’s bundle of money represents Old Man’s economical power and Boy is economical-weakness. The situation which presents Old Man as economically powerful is also symbolized more thoroughly by the appearance of property belong to Old Man, “Grand clothes and maybe a grand horse to ride” (432). Boy as the subordinate body which is presented entirely not having any kind of property, not appreciated in speaking his equal economy privilege but only to lose and still following Old Man’s muttering, identifies that Boy is placed in a lower economy class than Old Man by the way Purgatory projecting its image to Boy and audiences only through Old Man.

Old Man asks the Boy to ‘study that house’, ‘study that tree’, and ‘look at the window’ without answering Boy communicatively represents that Old Man does not hear or even see Boy equally with him. Boy is only presented to hear the Old Man and Old Man is presented to come in a monologue (not communicating with anyone beside himself) implies Purgatory’s significance in representing Boy as an image of female which produced by the male’s point of view, as Breen writes;

In a play which focuses simultaneously on the inextricability of male from female identity and the irreconcilability of upper- and lower-class voices, language does not exist so much between characters as within the ear of each (1989: 51).

Purgatory represents its specific treatment of class-distinct body not only through its image projection but also through the stage and actor’s properties. The knife is to symbolize the Old Man’s both economical and sexual power over the Boy. Knife is also economical because it represents the situation of man owning property like what I argue before. Boy is designed as an object to Old Man since he is presented to follow all of the Old Man’s passions and to have nothing at all even his own privilege in controlling himself are one of the Purgatory’s elements of the subjectivity of Old Man over-controlling the Boy’s body and soul through a symbol of knife. Knife is economical when it extends Old Man’s mental and physical strength to control the body and soul of the weaker who owns nothing, the Boy Boy’s but it is also sexual when knife is used to kill Boy’s body and soul which is presented as a place of Old Man to project his sexual desire to reach an orgasm ;

“My father and my son on the same jack-knife! That finishes- there- there- there- [He stabs again and again. The Window grows dark.]” (435).

That Old Man kills Boy with passion. The play presents the character’s tension of a very strong feeling of satisfaction by “he stabs again and again”. The Old Man which is presented enjoying the sensation of stabbing the Boy’s body is regarded as sexual. Purgatory claims Old Man’s sexual power and desire over the body-without-soul by that stabbing action (put a vital ‘tool’ in and out towards a body). Through that sexual representation, it is Old Man who is presented as a subject who does something to Boy, as an object. Old Man is only satisfying himself but leaving a sorrow to Boy just like the cases of woman who is rapped by a man. It then comes as a representation of how the lower class body is treated sexually yet violently in Purgatory.      

Compartmentalized or Separated?

 A Short Response to The Projection of Images in M. Butterfly and Queen’s Garden

Hwang’s M.Butterfly presents its image projections within two ways, first directly through the voice of the character;

GALLIMARD. … This Chinese diva- this unwilling Butterfly- what did she do to make her so proud? The room was hot, and full of smoke. Wrinkled faces, old women, teeth missing – a man with a growth on his neck, like a human toad. All smiling, pipes falling from their mouths, cracking nuts between their teeth, a live chicken pecking at my foot-all looking, screaming, gawking … at her (20).

Second, the image which is projected through stage direction which is presented following character’s part above;   

(The U.S. area is suddenly hit with a harsh white light. It has become the stage for the Chinese opera performance. Two dancers enter, along with Song. Gallimard stands apart, watching. Song glides gracefully amidst the two dancers. Drums suddenly slam to a halt. Song strikes a pose, looking straight at Gallimard. Dancers exit. Light change. Pause, then Song walks right off the stage and straight up to Gallimard.) (20).

Those two images are presented separately, and continuously being projected by ‘the head’ of Gallimard as the projector of the images in M.Butterfly. Those two distinct images have been projected not only in a separation but also in a compartmentalization. Each of the projected image’s worlds is not able to affect another world’s image or even to recognize each other although they both are literary projected on the same stage. They have been compartmentalized.

Hwang’s M. Butterfly is in a bit contrast with Aoki’s The Queen’s Garden in projecting its images. In Queen’s Garden the images have not been totally compartmentalized-projected. The projected images are only separated. One of the projected images is under control by another one. The images which are constructed as Narrator’s imagination are projected somehow as similar as how it is done by Gallimard in M.Butterfly which is projected separately into parts by the ‘head’ of narrator but the Narrator in this play also takes another important role in regulating the drama’s image projection; she (as Brenda, female main character) has the privilege to regulate the story. Narrator in Aoki’s Queen’s Garden is given a very exclusive power related to that regulating role. It is possible for Narrator, if only Aoki let her be, to disturb the world of another projection outside her (Narrator). It is because she is presented to recognize everything about the story, because the image is totally constructed and projected only through her head, through her voice (Narrator’s dialogue) in the drama. Narrator’s world can be regarded as the first world while the other part is the second world. The whole play consists of two worlds where the first world, Narrator’s fantasy and imagination which is presented in the play, controlling the second world outside Narrator’s.  

Class-distinct Bodies in Purgatory

Purgatory (1953) is a play written by William Butler Yeats. Purgatory is a drama which only consists of two male characters, Boy and his father, Old Man. They are set outside from an old house which is actually the house where the young Old Man stabbed his own father using the knife he uses to cut food and to kill the Boy. Purgatory represents its specific treatment of class-distinct body through its dialogues, stage, and actor’s properties. The knife is to symbolize the Old Man’s both economical and sexual power over the Boy. It is economical because it represents the situation of man owning property, a knife which extends Old Man’s mental and physical strength to control the body and soul of the weaker who owns nothing, the Boy. The situation which presents Old Man as economically powerful is also symbolized by the appearance of another poverty belong to him, “Grand clothes and maybe a grand horse to ride” (432). Old Man’s economical power and Boy is economical-weakness are presented more thoroughly in the scene of Boy’s failures in taking Old Man’s bundle of money (434). Old Man is presented to have everything when Boy is nothing. Boy is designed as an object to Old Man since he is presented to follow all of the Old Man’s passions and to have nothing at all even his own privilege in controlling himself. Old Man’s asking Boy to “study that tree” and to ”study that house” without replying or giving his attention to Boy’s following opinion are one of the Purgatory’s elements to represent the subjectivity of Old Man over-controlling the Boy’s body and soul. Boy’s body and soul is presented as a place of Old Man to project the image of him as a sinner (he recognizes his error) and even his sexual passion also desire to reach an orgasm by killing Boy;

“My father and my son on the same jack-knife! That finishes- there- there- there- [He stabs again and again. The Window grows dark.]” (435).

That Old Man kills Boy with passion. The play presents the character’s tension of a very strong feeling of satisfaction by “he stabs again and again”. The Old Man which is presented enjoying the sensation of stabbing the Boy’s body is regarded as sexual. Purgatory claims Old Man’s sexual power and desire over the body-without-soul by that stabbing action (put a vital ‘tool’ in and out towards a body). Through that sexual representation, it is Old Man who is presented as a subject who does something to Boy, as an object. Old Man is only satisfying himself but leaving a sorrow to Boy just like the cases of woman who is rapped by a man. It then comes as a representation of how the lower class body is treated sexually yet violently in Purgatory.