Hermeneutics of Ikat Weaving (Utan) Lian Lipa from Sikka Regency, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT)
Indonesia is famous for the amazing diversity of woven fabrics, so it has a special place in the hearts of its people. This diversity of woven fabrics is also owned by the people of Sikka Regency, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) Province. The type of woven fabric that is well-known in the Sikka Regency area is ikat woven fabric (Tallo, 2003). In general, the ikat woven fabrics of Sikka Regency can be distinguished based on gender, namely the women's woven ikat cloth which in Sikka-Krowe language is called utan and the male woven ikat cloth called ragi or lipa. One of the women's ikat cloth (utan) originating from Sikka Regency, namely the Lian Lipa utan. However, the existence of the Lian Lipa utan is still unknown to some people in Sikka Regency, especially related to symbols, such as the motifs on the woven cloth. Apart from symbols, other factors such as norms, social status, traditions and community beliefs attached to this forest are also not widely known. Thus, an in-depth study is needed to be able to answer the overall symbolic meaning of the Lian Lipa utan, namely through a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. Thus, this study aims to determine the hermeneutics of the woven ikat (utan) Lian Lipa. The research methodology used is a qualitative method and the data collection techniques are observation, in-depth interviews and document studies. Through a hermeneutic phenomenological approach by using the Symbolic Interaction Theory of George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, the results of his research show that the hermeneutics of the ikat cloth motif basically comes from the mindset and process of social interaction that has taken place since ancient times.
Aw, S. (2010). Komunikasi sosial budaya. Tangerang: Graha Ilmu.
Barker, G. G. (2016). Cross-cultural perspectives on intercultural communication competence. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2015.1104376
Burbank, P. M., & Martins, D. C. (2009). Symbolic interactionism and critical perspective: Divergent or synergistic? Nursing Philosophy, 11(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-769X.2009.00421.x
Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology, 64(6), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116638396
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: SAGE Publications.
Dennis, A. (2011). Symbolic interactionism and Ethnomethodology. Symbolic Interaction, 34(3), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2011.34.3.349
Denzin, N. K. (2016). Symbolic interactionism. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect143
Driyanti, R. (2011). Makna simbolik tato bagi manusia Dayak dalam kajian Hermeneutika Paul Ricoeur [Universitas Indonesia]. https://doi.org/10.32528/ins.v15i2.1849
Edie, T. M. (2011). Tenun ikat dan songket. Pelita Hati.
Finlay, L. (2009). Debating Phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology & Practice, 3(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.29173/pandpr19818
Finlay, L. (2012). Unfolding the Phenomenological research process: Iterative stages of “Seeing Afresh.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53(2), 172–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167812453877
Geertz, C. (1992). Politik kebudayaan. Jakarta: Kanisius.
Geertz, C. (2017). The interpretation of cultures. Hachette Book Group USA.
Kafle, N. P. (2011). Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(1), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.3126/bodhi.v5i1.8053
Kriyantono, R. (2014). Teknik praktis riset Komunikasi. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Kuper, A. (1999). Culture: The Anthropologists’ account. USA: Harvard University Press.
Kuswarno, E. (2009). Metode enelitian Komunikasi Fenomenologi, konsepsi, pedoman dan contoh penelitiannya. Bandung: Widya Padjadjaran.
Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Ualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2009). Analisis data kualitatif: Buku sumber tentang metode-metode baru. Universitas Indonesia (UI Press).
Mulyana, D. (2005). Ilmu Komunikasi suatu pengantar. Jakarta: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Mulyana, D. (2011). Komunikasi lintas budaya. Jakarta: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Orinbao, P. S. (1992). Seni tenun suatu segi kebudayaan orang Flores. Seminari Tinggi Santo Paulus Ledalero.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2014). Komunikasi lintas budaya: Communication between cultures (7th ed.). Salemba Humanika.
Subtil, F. (2014). James W. Carey’s cultural approach of Communication. Intercom RBCC (Revista Brasileira de Ciências Da Comunicação), 37(1), 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1809-58442014000100002
Tallo, E. C. (2003). Pesona tenun Flobamora. Tim Penggerak PKK dan Dekranasda Provinsi NTT.
Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1991). Triangulation of Qualitative Methods: Heideggerian Hermeneutics and Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research, 1(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239100100206
Copyright (c) 2021 International Journal of Science and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.