Religion and Social Capital of Citizenship: Bogor Islamic Community in a Globalizing World Development

  • Dundin Zaenuddin Centre for Society and Culture, Indonesian Institute of Sciences
Keywords: religion, social capital of citizenship, Islamic community, social organizations, civil society, social movements

Abstract

Democratization is a globalized agenda of development that needs to be developed by the Indonesian society to achieve a just and prosperous country that is referred to as ‘baldatun toyyibatun wa robbun ghofur’ (Arabic, literally, “good country under God forgiveness”). Within this framework, Islamic community (Islamic social organization) and other religious organizations are expected to behave kindly as an equal citizen that observe humanistic, pluralistic and tolerant religious social life. In this context, the situation of reciprocal trust, social solidarity, tolerance, equality, social networking even intra and extra-collective cooperation among socio-religious religious communities are expected to be more natural and sustainable. However, citizenship social capital still need to be develop through internalization and socialization. This research is based on the theories of Habitus of Bourdieu and Gellner’s Typology of Social Organization and Kymlicka’s Multicultural Citizenship. This research also use other sociological theory namely the social capital theory of citizenship from Putnam, Coleman, Uphof, and religion-state relations theory from Boland, Menchik and Riaz Hassan. This research is qualitative with a multidisciplinary approaches of Sociology, Political Science, and History. The research findings show (1) the cosmopolitanism of the Bogor society is the factor that the various Islamic social organizations are accepted; (2) The social capital type of citizenship of Islamic social organizations is formed due to differences in religious and political orientation which are the resultant understanding of the texts and its religious culture; (3) Nahdhatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah with a moderate religious orientation (washitiyyah) have citizenship social capital that is persistent with democracy, while Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia and Front Pembela Islam with a fundamentalist religious style (ushuliyyah) have civic social capital that is resistant to Pancasila democracy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Mujani, Saeful, 2002. Islam dan Good Government, IAIN Syarif Hidayatullah. Jakarta, PPIM. p: 19-20
[2] Mujani, Saeful, 2002. Islam dan Good Government, IAIN Syarif Hidayatullah. Jakarta, PPIM. p: 21-22
[3] Ritzer, G. dan D. J. Goodman. 2003. Teori Sosiologi Modern. [translated by: Alimandan]. Jakarta: Prenada Media. p: 522
[4] Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. California: Stanford University Press. p: 54
[5] Hikam, MAS. 1996. Demokrasi dan Civil Society. Jakarta: LP3ES. p:6.
[6] Putnam, Robert, 1993. “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life”, The American Prospect, Vol. 13, pp. 35-42.
[7] Hefner, Robert W. 2000. Islam Pasar Keadilan: Artikulasi Lokal, Kapitalisme, dan Demokrasi. Yogyakarta: LKIS. p: 227.
[8] Hassan, Riaz. 2006. Keragaman Iman, Studi Komparatif Masyarakat Muslim, terj. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Press.
[9] Bolland, B.J. 1982. The Struggle of Islam in Modern in Indonesia. Leidden: Martinus Nijholf.
[10] Menchik, J. 2016. Islam and Democracy in Indonesia. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[11] Uphoff, Norman, 2000. “Understanding Social Capital: Learning from the Analysis and Experience of Participation” (Makalah pada Staff Seminar, Mansholt Institute, Wageningen, 13 September).
[12] Wuthnow, Robert. 1994b. God and mammon in America. New York: Free Press. p:242
[13] Wuthnow, Robert. 1991. Acts of compassion: Caring for others andhelping ourselves. Princeton. New Jersey: Princeton University press. p: 325.
[14] Wuthnow, Robert. 1996. The religion industry: Further thoughts onproducing the sacred. In Society for the scientific study of religion annual meeting. Nashville: Tennessee. p: 87.
[15] Wuthnow, Robert. 2003. Can religion revitalize civil society? An institutional perspective. In Religion as social capital: Producing the common good, ed. Corwin E. Smidt:191-209. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. p: 208.
[16] Wald, K., L. Kellstedt, and D. Leege. 1993. “Civic involvement and political behavior”. In Rediscovering the religious factor in American politics, ed. D. Leege and D. Kellstedt. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. p: 49.
[17] Coleman, John A. 2003. Religious social capital: Its nature, social location, and limits. In Religion as social capital: Producing the common good, ed. Corwin E. Smidt: 33-49. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
[18] Turner, Bryan. S. 1990. “An outline of a Theory of Citizenship”. Sociology, vol. 24:3, page: 89-217.
[19] Young, C.M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
[20] Kukathas, B. 1992. “Are They any Cultural Right?” Political Theory, 20:105-139.
[21] Kymlicka. W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[22] Kymlicka, W dan Norman, W. eds. 2000. Citizenship in Diverse Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[23] Fenemo, M dan Tillie, J. 1999. “Political Participation and PoliticalTrust in Amsterdam: Civic Communities and Ethnic Networks”. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25 (4), 703-726.
[24] Gellner, Ernest. 1982. Muslim Society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[25] Gellner, Ernest. 1995. Membangun Masyarakat Sipil, Prasyarat Menuju Kebebasan,Terj. Ilyas Hasan. Bandung: Mizan.
Published
2020-12-03
How to Cite
Zaenuddin, D. (2020). Religion and Social Capital of Citizenship: Bogor Islamic Community in a Globalizing World Development. International Journal of Interreligious and Intercultural Studies, 3(2), 86-100. https://doi.org/10.32795/ijiis.vol3.iss2.2020.1093