Benefits of the Study

fantasy. It is called fantasy since the ideology is like an illusion. In every practice or conduct, people act based on what they know or even what they do not know. Zizek adds that ideological fantasy is a double illusion since “they people know very well how things are but still they are doing it as if they did not know” 2008: 30. The implication is that the existence of ideology can be traced in the practice or conduct. The tendency is, again, however, that people consider what they are doing is reasonable and true or natural. The possibilities of the existence of different ideologies and the nature of ideology that the holders consider it as true, natural and logical bring a consequence and the consequence brings further implications in practice. The consequence is that the holders of particular ideologies have a tendency to promote and the ideologies to the other groups holding different ideologies. In other words, the groups want to dominate each other. The implications of that consequence are the domination of one ideology to the others and the struggles of the less dominate groups toward the dominant groups. Those implications appear when there is inequality of power. Power enables the member of particular groups of a particular ideology to control the other groups of ideologies. On that notion, Tollefson 2006: 46 notes that power is the ability to “control events in order to achieve one’s aims”. Similarly, Myers- Scotton mentions that power is “the control someone has over the outcomes of others” 2006: 199. The controlling group can be said as the powerful and the dominant group. This dominant group tries to introduce its ideology toward the other groups. Van Dijk notes , “Power involves control, namely by members of one group over those of other groups. Such control may pertain to action and cognition : that is, a powerful group may limit the freedom of action of others, but also influence their minds” 1993: 254. The exercise of power by the dominant group is possible to create and shape identities of the others Thielle, 2002: 99. The use of power to limit the freedom of action of others is defined as power abuse and the influence of others’ minds can be through hegemony. The practice of hegemony is less visible than the practice of power abuse. Power abuse is indicated by the breaking of law, democracy, or norms in society while hegemony is by accepted consensus. Later on Van Dijk also mentions that “the concept of hegemony … does not always imply a clear picture of villains and victims” Van Dijk, 1993: 255. The difficulty to recognize the practice of hegemony is also implied by Wodak as quoted by Locke: Certainly, ideology is a concept that currently resists erasure. Even with differing concepts, Wodak 2001, writes, critical theory intends to create awareness in agents of how they are deceived about their own needs and interests p. 10 2004: 33. Because of the practice of hegemony is not clearly visible peoples are sometimes deceived by their needs and interests. They do not realize that particular groups and ideologies are controlling their actions. In this case the controlled peoples are being hegemonized and the dominant group is successful in delivering the ideologies as Fairclough notes , “Ideology is most effective when its workings are least visible” 1989: 85. In the discussion on power and the exercise of it, besides the hegemony, the definition and characteristics of power by Foucault become influential since he wants to provide the structures of power. For Foucault, power exists when it is exercised as cited in O’Farrel, 2005: 99. In other words, power cannot be static in a group or in a person. To observe the existence of power, a researcher should observe in the relation of individuals. In line with the previous discussion that power might control other groups, Foucault shares the same idea on it that power becomes a way to change people’s conduct. The term ‘conduct’ is associated to the action of leading others O’Farrel, 2005: 99, Foucault in Faubion, 2000: 341. The conduct of power relation should have characteristics. Power relation possesses six characteristics. Those characteristics are useful to notice in observing power relation Foucault in Faubion, 2000: 329-331. First, power relation is a transversal struggle. Power relation exists not only in one country but also almost in everywhere. This idea is similar to Thiele’s that “the exercise of power in collective live is unavoidable” 2002: 115. One implication of this idea is that there is no condition of power vacuum. Second, the target or objective of power struggles is the power effect. The struggles on power are always due to the effects of the power relation practice. In other words, the struggles are ignited by the impact caused by the power relation practice. Third, the analysis of power relation is immediate to the critics. The critics or people who conduct analysis on power relation always find the closest instances of power to them. Fourth, power relation is a struggle that questions the status of the individual. The struggles can be for two purposes. They struggle for the right of individuals to be truly individuals, and for “attacking” everything that separate individuals into groups. The important note is that analysis on power relation does not against the individuals but does against the government of individualization. Fifth, power relation analysis is observing the opposition to the effects of power linked with knowledge, competence, and qualification. The analysis should, therefore, find the location of knowledge, competence, and qualification in the relationship. One group of society must possess more knowledge or privilege of knowledge in the relationship with the other group. This might also lead to imbalances in power relationship. Sixth, t he last characteristic is that “they are a refusal of these abstractions, of economic and ideological state influence, which ignore who we are individually, and also a refusal of scientific or administrative inquisition that determines who one is” Foucault in Faubion, 2000: 331. Further, the analysis of power relation requires the establishment of five points. Those points are required to draw detailed and systematic picture of the relationship Foucault in Faubion, 2000: 344. First, the analysis needs the system of differentiations. The differentiation is meant to define the relationship since in a relation, there must be more than a group. However, the differentiation is into two groups through the dividing process p. 326. The dividing process divides the subject inside himself or divides the subject from others. Foucault exemplifies by the differentiation of the mad versus the sane, the sick versus the healthy, or the criminals versus the good boys. Second, the analysis needs to determine the types of objectives. The analyst should try to find a particular objective of one group towards the others. The objective might vary, ranged from the “maintenance of privilege, the accumulation of profits”, or “the exercise of statutory authority” p. 344. Third, an analysis of power relation needs the instrumental modes. As power might not exist in vacuum, i.e. with no relationship among individuals or groups, power relation needs media to exist. The observation of power relation