JRSSEM 2023, Vol. 02, No. 7, 1426 – 1444

E-ISSN: 2807 - 6311, P-ISSN: 2807 - 6494

DOI: 10.36418/jrssem.v2i07.344 https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem

THE WALLS OF THE HOUSE AS A GRAMMAR OF

DIVERSITY (COMMUNICATION MODEL OF CATHOLIC

AND ISLAMIC SOCIETIES IN NTARAM)

Marselus Robot

Nusa Cenana University, Indonesia

e-mail: robot.marsel@gmail.com

*Correspondence: robot.marsel@gmail.com

Submitted

: 20

January 2023

Revised

: 09

February 2023

Accepted

: 25

February 2023

Abstract: This study aims to find a communication model for people of different religions in

Ntaram, Flores, and East Nusa Tenggara. The Ntaram people understand their world as a

synthesis perpetuated by differences. One of the modes of communication that exists together

in religious differences is symbolic communication. Ntaram people use the walls of houses as

a medium to express their religious identity. The relevant theory for analyzing the form of

symbolic communication is the theory of Symbolic Interaction. The Symbolic Interaction

Perspective sees the social structure as shaped precisely by interaction. For example, a family

is formed because those family members communicate. The way they communicate sets them

apart from the rest of the family. In the process of meaning occurs mental activities that

distinguish the meaning of human actions from the movements of animals. The activity of

interpretation becomes a bridge between stimulus and response. The method used is

qualitative with a field strategy of ethnography of communication. Ethnography in the context

of phenomenology emphasizes the investigation of social events from the point of view of

"indigenous or insiders". In this case, the task of the researcher is to try to interpret and

understand the behavior patterns and forms of communication of members of a community.

Data was collected through in-depth interviews with purposively determined key informants.

Also, through Focus Grou Discussion (FG), and observation, especially to obtain data related

to context. Data validation is carried out through triangulation. Triangulation is carried out

between sources to ensure the accuracy of data from key informants and other informants.

The findings of the study show that the walls are about who they are. Each data sili mai wae

house visible on the wall of the living room is plastered with several sacred images (such as

sufis or Islamic imams) of the world or calendars with Islamic nuances. On the contrary, for ata

le mai tana golo, the identity was placed in the corner of the living room. A statue of Jesus or

a statue of Our Lady with a small house complete with accessories that give a religious

atmosphere in the corner of the room. It all revolves around who the occupants of the house

are and how they are treated. The strategy of pronouncing a special identity through the walls

and corners of the house indicates that what appears outside the home is universal, while the

inside of the house is a space of privacy.

Keywords: home wall; communication; harmony; Ntaram; syncretism.

Marselus Robot | 1427

INTRODUCTION

Ntaram is a village with three main

tribes, namely the Mbaru Ajang Cengi tribe,

the Mbaru Golo tribe, and the Mbaru

Munta tribe. Today, Ntaram is an entity

consisting of several villages (Nanga, Golo

Wote, Golo Ngawan, Nelo, and Ntaram)

located in the interior of East Manggarai, in

Golo Ngawan Village, Sambi Rampas

District, Manggarai Regency - West Flores,

East Nusa Tenggara Province. The

sovereignty of Ntaram as a village can be

referred to in Braam Morris's (1891:182 in

Dami Toda, 1999:193) description of the

districts under Pota (now the capital of

Sambi Rampas-author's District). Ntaram

which Braam Morris writes Taram is a

region of the Congkar district. Braam

Morris details as follows: Tjongkar consists

of 30 villages: Pisi, Tjenap, Mennie, Diroek,

Pannis, Toenggal, Gilak, Lawie, Wangkar,

Taram, Pasie, Wanang, Giling, Pota, Woega,

Ramboek, Kangoe, Koe-it, Djaliet, Watoe,

Milim, Meran, Tiwoe, Lioe, Nawal, Toedie,

Sapie, Paiet, Goeneong, Setawangan.

Administratively the modern

government, Ntaram is within the area of

Golo Ngawan Village, one of the 8 villages

in Sambi Rampas District. The name of the

village (Golo Ngawan) is taken from the

name of a hill where the people of Ntaram

live around the hill. Golo Ngawan village

borders four other villages that culturally

include Congkar culture. The eastern

boundary is with Rana Mese Village, the

Western boundary is with Golo Wangkung

Village, the Northern boundary is with Buti

Village, Southern boundary is with Satar

Nawang Village.

The uniqueness of Golo Ngawan

Village lies in the tradition of the plurality

of beliefs that they adhere to. Almost every

small village in the name of Ntaram must

have these two communities. The

individuals of the two communities live

randomly. That is, Muslims and Catholics

live without any barriers. The Ntaram

people themselves do not call it that. They

have more euphoric connotations or

designations. They labeled the community

ata sili mai wae (people from the

river/coast) for the Muslim religious

community and the ata le mai community

tanah golo (people from the mountain)

which is often connoted with Catholicism.

That connotation seems more

anthropological-geographic than a

connotation of a religious nature.

Ntaram in the modern sense is an

entity that references the syncretism of

eight tribes, two religious traditions, and

two forms of the power structure. In other

words, concretely the village of Ntaram is

no longer occupied. The village has long

been abandoned by its inhabitants and

bloomed into several small villages, namely

Nanga, Golo Wote, Nelo, Golo Ngawan,

and several others small villages. However,

the small villages are under the name

Ntaram. Some of these small villages,

basically only Golo Wote called Kampung

Ntaram. The naming was deliberately given

as a spiritual memory (plural culture) of the

old village (Ntaram) that they had left

behind. More than that, the naming was a

way of passing on the value of plurality that

the Ntaram people live and bring to life to

this day. Therefore, whoever is a stranger

or an outsider asks the village where he

stepped on his foot first there, then the

1428 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

answer is hood Ntaram (this is Ntaram).

That is the phrase that became the thesis to

understand the miracle of plurality in

several villages in the name of Ntaram.

Differences in religious traditions,

differences in traditions of power, and

variations of the tribes that inhabit Ntaram

give the typical complexion of Ntaram

society with all its social consequences. It

can be said that beyond the names of

several villages, Ntaram is a unique form of

synthesis. As a synthesis, Ntaram was

formed by the confluence of eight tribes

(Mbaru Mese Tribe, Mbaru Bongko Tribe,

Mbaru Labal Tribe, Mbaru Weli Tribe,

Mbaru Cangge Tribe, Mbaru Golo Tribe,

Mbaru Munta Tribe, Mbaru Ajang Cengi

Tribe). The eight tribes spread out to form

small villages under their names but always

legitimized themselves as Ntaram people.

Ntaram, therefore, is not an identity that is

only real in the form of birth, but rather an

entity of plurality. In a more concrete

formulation that Ntaram is a finished

definition in the thoughts and deeds of

orang Ntaram. When one mentions

Ntaram for example, it immediately refers

to the plurality of Ntaram people. That is

what causes the villages under Ntaram to

seem eccentric and have a typical

personality. The social reality was born by

Ntaram's history. Social mechanisms in the

formation of values, norms, attitudes, and

worldviews as well as institutional patterns

and features of social hierarchies are

determined by the mechanisms of meeting

and social processes of the two

communities. In this regard, the history and

manner of entry of the two religions have

its influenced the acceptance and

development of the two religions in

Ntaram. The significance of the meeting of

the two religions is that consciousness

fosters the personality of Ntaram (Robot,

2005).

Theoretical Perspective

The theory used in this study is

Symbolic Interaction. The Symbolic

Interaction Perspective sees the social

structure as shaped precisely by

interaction. For example, a family is formed

because those family members

communicate. The way they communicate

sets them apart from the rest of the family.

According to Blumer, Symbolic Interaction

points to the typical human nature of the

interaction between humans.

Distinctiveness is that humans translate and

define each other's actions (Ritzer,1992:61).

In the process of meaning occurs mental

activities that distinguish the meaning of

human actions from the movements of

animals. The activity of interpretation

becomes a bridge between stimulus and

response. That is, it is the stimulus and

meaningful response that are at the core of

the theory of Symbolic Interaction.

Stimulus and response are not

mechanical responses, but mental

processes. This was expressly stated by

Mead. The three core concepts in Mead's

view that underlie Symbolic Interaction are

mind, self, and society (Litlejohn, 1996).

These three aspects are different but

contribute equally to social action.

According to Mead, social action is the

basic concept of almost all psychological

processes and other social processes. An

action is an overarching unit of behavior

that cannot be separated in its analysis. An

action can be simple, but it can be

Marselus Robot | 1429

complicated.

To illustrate, there is an intrinsic

relationship between symbolism in fists,

feelings of anger or intent to attack, and

actual physical aggression. That is to say, he

consciously clenched fists to express anger

or cohesiveness and thus would foresee the

response of the person who received that

gesture or behavior. In other words,

conscious human behavior is deliberately

carried out to give a certain message to the

target who receives the message. So,

human beings are not just acting, but

acting meaningfully. Burke specifically

provides a firm boundary between motion

and action. According to Burke, the action

consists of deliberate and purposeful

behavior, while movement is behavior that

contains meaning but is not purposeful.

Objects and animals have motion, but only

humans have action (Litlejohn,1966).

Symbolic Interaction emphasizes that

human behavior is seen as a process that

involves individuals shaping their behavior

taking into account the expectations of the

people with whom they interact

(Becker,1961 in Mulyana,2002:230). With

the explanation of Ritzer (1992:62),

individuals or units of action consisting of a

certain set of people, adapt or match each

other's actions to each other through a

process of interpretation.

Ritzer describes the life of society

according to the view of symbolic

interaction as follows: Individuals or units of

action consisting of a certain set of people,

mutually adjusting or matching each

other's actions with each other through a

process of interpretation. In the case of

actors who are in the form of a group, then

the action of the group is the collective

action of the individuals who are members

of that group. For this theory, the

individual, interaction, and interpretation

become key in the understanding of social

life.

Ritzer (1992:69) concludes Rose's

Theory of Symbolic Interaction as follows:

People's lives are formed through the

process of interaction and communication

between individuals and between groups

using symbols that are understood to mean

the process of learning. A person's actions

in the process of interaction are not merely

a response of a direct nature to a stimulus

from his environment or from outside

himself. But the action is the result of a

process of interpretation of the stimulus.

So, it is the result of the process of learning,

trying to understand the symbols, and

adjusting each other's meanings. Although

these norms, social values, and meanings

provide restrictions on his actions, with his

ability to think man has the freedom to

determine the actions and goals he does

not achieve.

The basis of the Symbolic Interaction

perspective is self, other, symbol, meaning,

interpretation, and action. The flow of

symbolic interaction sees participants as

actively communicating, reflectively and

creatively interpreting, and displaying

behaviors that are complicated to foresee.

Blumer put forward three premises on

which this model is based. First, the human

being acts on the meaning that the

individual gives to his social environment

(verbal symbols, nonverbal symbols,

physical environment). Secondly, that

meaning is directly related to the social

interaction that the individual carries out

with his social environment. Third, meaning

1430 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

is created, maintained, and transformed

through the process of interpretation that

the individual undertakes about his or her

social environment (Fisher, 1986: 241;

Mulyana, 2000).

Mead emphasized the importance of

gestures in communicating with humans.

According to Mead humans communicate

with cues (Johnson, 1990). Mead gives an

example, a person who is no longer

interested in a conversation but looks up at

the sky without paying any more attention

to the conversation. A gesture or gesture of

looking up at the sky sends a message to

the interlocutor that the conversation

immediately stops because it is not

interesting anymore. If the act of "looking

up at the sky" is understood as intended by

the person who acted, then the interlocutor

adjusts his behavior, whether stopping the

conversation, or other actions that respond

to the action of "looking up at the sky." So,

there are nonverbal acts done intentionally

that have the potential to be a message for

others to respond to. Then, the other

person adjusts his actions according to his

interpretation of the action.

A gesture that produces the same

response in the person doing it as in the

person to whom the gesture is intended is

a meaningful cue. This same response is the

meaning of cues, and the emergence of

those shared meanings allows symbolic

communication to occur (Johnson,

1990:12). As Mead said, motion or gesture

is a basic mechanism in social action and

more general social processes. According

to Mead's definition, gestures are

movements of the first organism that act as

specific stimuli that elicit an appropriate

social response from the second organism

(Littlejohn,1996; Johnson, 1990; Mulyana,

2002; Ritzer and Goodman,2004). Mead

emphasizes the relationship between vocal

cues and behavior as the basis of symbolic

interaction. Mead explained this as follows:

Language is part of social behavior.

There are an indefinite number of signs or

symbols which may serve the purpose of

what we term "language" We are reading

the meaning of the conduct of other

people when, perhaps, they are not aware

of it. There is something that reveals to us

what the purpose is -just the glance of an

eye, the attitude of the body which leads to

the response (Mulyana, 1995:69).

The peculiarity in symbolic

communication that human beings are not

only limited to vocal cues but also gestural

cues during such movements has the

potential to be interpreted. Mead himself

admits that the vocal cues and behaviors

associated with them in human society

provide the foundation for symbolic

interaction (Mulyana,2002:79). In

Goffman's abstraction it is called

expression given and expression given off,

the first is intentional communication

(usually referring to verbal cues), while the

second refers to unintentional (nonverbal)

communication that may give a very

different meaning to verbal cues

(Littlejon,1996: Mulyana,2002:79).

Significant language or symbol

functions generally drive the same

response on the part of the individual

speaking as well as the other party. The

word dog or cat acquires the same mental

image in the person who pronounces it and

in the person of the interlocutor. Mead also

sees the function of cues primarily to create

opportunities among individuals involved

Marselus Robot | 1431

in certain social actions concerning the

objects to which those actions are

subjected (Ritzer and Goodman, 2004).

However, in the process of interaction

individuals or groups of people not only

interpret and give meaning but also

establish conventions such as rules, roles,

and norms that allow effective interaction.

In the words of Littlejohn (1996:16) as

follows:

Interaction, therefore, leads to or

reinforces the shared meaning and

establishes conventions like rules, roles,

and norms that enable further interaction

to take place. Conventions, or standard

meanings, are worked out through

interaction. Meanings change from time to

time, from situation to situation, and from

one group to another.

Convention or the standard meaning

and action is generated through

interaction. In other words, the

interpretation during the interaction

process is determined and determines a

context and convention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The method used in this study is

qualitative. The selection of methods is

very relevant because the data collected

are in the form of, words, phrases,

sentences, symbols, and metalanguages.

Moleong (2007) said qualitative research

intends to understand the phenomenon of

what the research subject understands. For

example, behavior, perception of

motivations, actions, etc. holistically and in

a descriptive way in the form of words and

language, in a special natural context, and

by utilizing various scientific contexts. Field

studies using ethnographic strategies

(Cresswell, 2012, Emzir, 2012). This method

asks researchers to stay long in the field

because it not only collects data but has to

experience data. Determination of

informants is carried out purposively. The

research location is in Taga (Golo Nderu

Village, North Komba City District, East

Manggarai Regency which was conducted

from June to November 2021).

Field strategy through an

ethnographic approach to communication.

Ethnography in the context of

phenomenology emphasizes the

investigation of social events from the

point of view of "indigenous or insiders". In

this case, the researcher's task is to try to

interpret and understand the behavior

patterns and forms of communication of

members of a community (Littlejohn, 1996).

Meanwhile, communication ethnography is

the application of ethnographic methods

to communicate behavior patterns in a

community.

Philipsen (Littlejohn, 1996) separates

four ethnographic assumptions of

communication. First, community members

create shared meaning. They use methods

that have a common understanding.

Secondly, the communicators of each

cultural group must coordinate their

actions. That is, there is an order and a

system for communicating. Thirdly, the

meaning, actions, and distinctive properties

of each group. Fourth, not only do patterns

of behavior and cultural codes differ

between communities or groups, but also

differ in ways of understanding behavior

and cultural codes.

According to Donald Carbaugh (in

Littlejohn, 1996:215), communication

1432 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

ethnography refers to at least three types

of problems. The first type of problem is to

find the type of shared identity created

through communication in a cultural

community. This identity is a meaning that

unites them while showing who they are as

a community. It is a collection of shared

qualities central to the orientation of its

members in behavior. The second type of

problem expresses the common meaning

of public performance seen in the

community. What shapes communication

behavior in the community, and what

meaning do the various performances

entail? The third type of problem, delving

into the contradictions or paradoxes of the

group. How the situation is addressed

through communication. How, for example,

does a culture treat its members as

individuals while also providing a bond of

commonality? How is autonomy granted

while also maintaining authority? How rules

are taught while instilling thoughts about

freedom.

Researchers select informants based

on the purpose of obtaining the data

needed in this study. Informants are subject

to certain criteria, namely, (1) knowing in

depth the intricacies of the characteristics

of the Ntaram community, (2) being born

and raised in the research area, (3) being

able to communicate and being able to

form researchers to provide information,

(4) men at least 50 years old. Data

collection was carried out through in-depth

interviews based on open-ended

questions, recording, and observation to

observe behavior and ritual context. Data

validation is carried out in two ways,

namely triangulation and Focus Group

Discussion (FGD) which presents the main

resource persons, other resource persons,

and related parties, both government and

non-government agencies. Triangulation is

carried out between sources to determine

the validity of data from key informants and

other informants. Also, the triangulation

method is to carefully examine the

consistency of interview data and

observation or recording data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Nataram and the Ntaram People

Geographically, Ntaram is located in

Golo Ngawan Village, Sambi Rampas

District, Manggarai Regency. The

topographical state of Sambi Rampas

District is mostly 30 marbles. 732 ha, the

total area reaches 40,009 ha. The height

from sea level reaches 500-1000 m. This

condition allows residents in this area to

cultivate more dry land covering an area of

5,144 ha (gardening) than wetlands

(swamped) covering an area of 482 ha. The

population of Sambi Rampas Subdistrict

produces only 3,108 tons of rice per year

from an area of 952 ha. Green beans are

quite a lot of crops and produce 319 tons

per year. Most of the soil textures with

lithosol reached 33 809 ha, and the most

rainfall occurred in February, namely 466,

or 23 days in February there was rain in this

district.

Golo Ngawan Village is one of the 8

villages in the Sambi Rampas District. The

name of the village (Golo Ngawan) is taken

from the name of a hill where the people of

Ntaram live around the hill. This village

belongs to the villages located in the

mountains. Golo Ngawan village borders

Marselus Robot | 1433

four other villages that culturally include

Congkar culture. The eastern boundary

with Rana Mese Village, the Western

boundary with Golo Wangkung Village, the

Northern boundary with Buti Village,

Southern boundary with Satar Nawang

Village.

The uniqueness of Golo Ngawan

Village lies in the tradition of the plurality

of beliefs that they adhere to. Almost every

small village in the name of Ntaram must

have these two communities. Such a

situation shows that in each village there

are two communities. The individuals of the

two communities live randomly. That is,

Muslims and Catholics live without any

barriers. The Ntaram people themselves do

not call it that. They have more euphoric

connotations or designations. They labeled

the community ata sili mai wae (people

from the river/coast) for the Muslim

religious community and the ata le mai

community tanah golo (people from the

mountain) which is often connoted with

Catholicism. That connotation seems more

anthropological-geographic than a

connotation of a religious nature.

On the slopes of Golo Ngawan

covering an area of 480 ha, there are 2,164

inhabitants. The data sili mai wae

community has 2 mosques 1 mosque and

another Islamic school (madrasa).

Meanwhile, ata le mai tana golo has three

churches. A madrasa stands majestically

near the courtyard of a Kapela or about 22

meters from the door of a kapela. Everyone

who wants to go to the chapel for Sunday

mass or worship must pass through the

courtyard of the madrasa.

Such spatial planning is more symbolic

than purely technical problems. That is,

churches and madrassas facing each other

seem to exude a pluralistic beauty between

data sili mai wae and ata le mai tana golo.

That situation was reinforced also by their

knowledge of the essence of the difference

between them. Both communities know

each other well in their religious traditions.

Regular meetings and rituals seem to

provide complete knowledge to

understand each other. Ata sili mai wae

truly knows exactly when and when to start

praying on Sunday. They also know the day

of Easter and Christmas and the rituals

associated with them.

The case below could explain the

circumstances. One Sunday, a rather old

man crossed the road between the

madrasa and the church. He was dressed in

makeshift clothes, carrying a sickle about to

go to the garden. While the others were

neatly dressed and hated. When asked in

their language: Jam Pisa ngaji sena mai

chapel hoo? (What time is the prayer in this

chapel?). The man replied: it's usually eight

o'clock. The use of the word lasagna

(usually) contains empirical experiences

that prove that ata sili mai wae (Muslims)

not only know Sundays but know at what

time ata email tana golo performs mass

worship in the chapel. Furthermore,

sociologically the phrase lasagna (usually)

asks for the consequence that passing

through the chapel on Sundays and at such

hours is not allowed to sing or fuss.

Sensitivity to differences and an excellent

way of maintaining harmony.

On the contrary, data le mai tana golo

(Catholic community) knows well when it is

not permissible to smoke in the middle of

the village: "Eme cai willing ceiling dise ase

have sili mai wae, hami toe roko one natas"

1434 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

(If the month of abstinence – fasting from

our brother ata sili mai wae, we naturally do

not smoke in the village yard).

The layout is also shown in the village

system which is randomly inhabited by

members of the two communities. The

placement of houses and the location of

houses of worship that they do reinforce

the impression that in Ntaram there live

two communities that acknowledge each

other's existence and seek to exist in these

differences.

Several small villages under the

identity of Ntaram (Golo Wote, Nanga,

Nelo, Golo Ngawan) are located on the

hillside of Golo Ngawan. The village has a

slope of 55 degrees. Hill soil reaches 83%

with the state of Litasol soil (rocky) with an

altitude of approximately 700 m3 above

sea level. Such topographical conditions

caused the inhabitants of Ntaram to

depend only on dry land (farmed) areas.

Ntaram farmers work with a diversification

system. In a garden, various plants are

grown such as coffee, pecan, chocolate,

coconut, banana, keladi, cassava, and other

types of plants.

The trade crops cultivated by the

Ntaram people and the people of Golo

Ngawan Village to this day are coffee,

chocolate, vanilla, and pecan. While the wet

area (rice fields) is very small. Therefore, in

the dry season (July to September) Ntaram

and its surroundings are included in food-

insecure areas. The geographical situation

also encourages Ntaram people in certain

seasons to work odd jobs in the informal

sector in Ruteng (the district capital), and in

other areas. Some residents of Ntaram,

especially young people, make a living as

migrant workers in Malaysia.

House Walls as Grammatical Diversity

The history of the confluence of

religious differences in Ntaram gave rise to

certain social experiences and

accompanied their behavior both verbally

and nonverbally. Living and experiencing

differences in regular encounters (every

day) is also a latent attempt to form several

values, norms, conventions, and codes

shared that are oriented towards social

harmony and seek to let differences grow

between them.

Several core poles support diversity in

Ntram. First, the value of consciousness ca

nang agu ca wa'u (inbred and seketurunan)

with several elements related to it, namely

customary principles, beo-wae (kampung),

the importance of the family in maintaining

social harmony, media banteng agu reject

(customary agreement) for brothers and

sisters and living in harmony and long (the

habit of meeting). Second, the family is the

foundation of harmony; third, Murin agu

Ngaran is the Supreme Being believed by

Catholicism and Islam; fourth, the concept

of hiring tau (mutual respect), which in the

Ntaram sense is more substantial, namely

respecting others not only because of the

other person as a human being but also

because the other person is as ata ba tara

de Murin (the bearer of the owner's

likeness). While several elements are

covered in it the theme ning agu theme bis

(not feeling disgusted and not trying to

insult others), Copel, and Jurak (sanctions

for people who act unethically and people

who commit adultery). Fifth, the potential

for conflict in Ntaram society.

Another path taken by the Ntaram

people to experience and dive into the

reality of difference is epistemic sensitivity

Marselus Robot | 1435

i.e. being sensitive to what they know about

their differences as ata sili mai wae and as

ata le mai tana golo. There were no

banners of exhortation on the curb, or

verbal announcements spoken through

dignitaries when the fasting month came.

Reality is simply captured with a taste

antenna. Ata le mai tana golo knew

carefully when his brother ata sili mai wae

performed fasting, and what they should

do.

The point is that any outsider who

comes to Ntaram will find it difficult to

identify individuals from both communities.

There is nothing particularly distinctive that

characterizes the distinction between the

data le mai tana golo community and the

data sili mai wae community. In the daily

appearance between the individuals of the

two communities, it is difficult to

distinguish. There is not a single distinctive

identity that distinguishes the two. They

both use peci, have the same house shape,

the same language, speaking style, and

manners. However, when they entered

their home, it was very clear that their

identities were read on the wall of the living

room or the corner of the living room. The

walls are splattered with who they are. Each

data sili mai wae house visible on the wall

of the living room is plastered with several

sacred images (such as sufis or Islamic

imams) of the world or calendars with

Islamic nuances. On the contrary, for ata le

mai tana golo, the identity was placed in

the corner of the living room. A statue of

Jesus or a statue of Our Lady with a small

house complete with accessories that give

a religious atmosphere in the corner of the

room. It all revolves around who the

occupants of the house are and how they

are treated. The strategy of pronouncing a

special identity through the walls and

corners of the house indicates that what

appears outside the home is universal,

while the inside of the house is a space of

privacy. In a sense, the issue of religion is a

private matter. While on the street or in the

yard it becomes a humanitarian affair or a

social affair.

The images and statues of the saints

are real objects or objects, but at the same

time express the intention (subject) of the

inhabitants of the house. In other words, a

picture or statue is a real object affixed to

the wall constituting an objectivation of the

subjectivization of its inhabitants. Thus,

images and statues express certain motifs

(we are a Muslim family or we are a Catholic

family), and treat us as we should". In Haji

Ahmad Heba's house, for example, there

are pictures of several young children

reading the Quran. The semi-permanent

house was painted green as a color as an

Islamic icon. On the wall of the triplex door

which is also pressed green inscribed

Arabic letters with a black marker. The host

writes the Arabic letters not to be

understood by the visitor of the house, or

to know the meaning of the word, but the

script is just a gesture that wants to convey

a message to anyone who meets in the

house, that "we are a Muslim family, and

please adjust your behavior".

In the context of Ntaram (which is

plural), the act of putting a sacred image on

the wall of the living room or installing a

statue in the corner of the living room is

related to moral rules, and is social, both for

the Ntaram people themselves and for

foreigners (not Ntaram people). Because

the image and the statue indirectly tell

1436 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

people to change or modify their behavior

during communication with the host. Also,

that plurality does not always produce

secularization i.e. weakens the position of

religion and reduces it to a very personal

problem. This is how to build a movement

of harmony to live in differences.

It can further be explained that the

statues and images of the saint can be

described as social acts (doings), and

therefore asked to be interpreted by others,

and not as happenings. Each action has a

specific motive and contains a certain

meaning. There is a certain intention

behind the installation of the image of the

saint or the installation of a statue in the

corner of the guest room.

This symptom is a form of social action

since it is asked to be interpreted and

ultimately aims to match each other's

actions. The reason is very clear that each

action must contain certain intentions,

plans, and certain expectations of the

person involved. The act of putting up

images of saints, putting up statues, and

crosses in the living room is an act of

purpose, deliberately to be interpreted in

the context of the differences between the

two communities. Therefore, the act is a

moral, legal, and social rule both for the

Ntaram people themselves and even for

foreigners. Because events in the yard or

routines outside the home do not give their

color to the two communities that have

different religious traditions.

The act of putting a statue in the corner

of the room or sticking a picture of a saint

on the wall of the living room wants to

convey the message that we are a Catholic

family or a Muslim and treat us as you know

about us. It's a moral message that is

delivered simply and can only be read by

the radar of sensitivity. This phenomenon

the perspective of Symbolic Interaction is

explained as a behavior that seeks to

engage individuals to shape their behavior

taking into account the expectations of the

people with whom they interact. The units

of action of a certain set of people, mutually

adapt or match each other's actions to each

other through a process of interpretation.

The goal is to expand the field of mutual

understanding between them. Thus, a

harmonious state is created.

This behavior contains knowledge as

well. At least, the picture affixed to the wall

and the statue deliberately placed in the

corner of the guest room became a

discourse that reminded everyone of the

importance of difference, and the

importance of appreciating that difference.

Because, after all, the action has

consequences, and asks for certain

treatment as well. An action contains the

motive or intention of the perpetrator and

that action is only in the context of the

reality that has provided the difference.

That is, both are well aware that in special

cases (streams of belief) they are very

different. The Catholic in Ntaram put up a

statue in the corner of the living room

because he knew his neighbors were many

Muslims.

This situation is different from some

non-Muslim areas such as the Riwu or

Manus regions or in other areas in

Manggarai. In this region, the statue is

hidden in a bedroom. On the contrary,

images of sufis, and saints, are not found in

Islamic-majority areas such as in Pota. In

other words, in Ntaram, the walls of houses

become a text to introduce who they are

Marselus Robot | 1437

and at the same time a simple

communication system that is asked to be

interpreted. Although the scenery outside

the house is the same between the two

communities. However, the walls of the

guest room and the corner of the living

room are distinctive. A guest or stranger is

introduced to a simple syntax: The image of

a saint means that the inhabitants of the

house are communities of ata sili mai wae

(Islam); the statue in the corner of the guest

room hints that the occupant of the house

is the community at le mai tana golo

(Catholic). This is a convention that has

social dimensions or at least contains social

action. An act that is motivated to be

interpreted. The image on the wall of the

guest room, or the statue in the corner of

the guest room becomes an index that

explains the differences and the path to

meaning to the plan of behavior.

This is what Berger explains,

institutionalization occurs when reciprocal

typicality is accustomed to different types

of perpetrators. In other words, each such

typicality is one institution (1996:79).

Berger stressed that the reference to

actions that have been made customary,

which make up institutions is always a

common property. Those typical according

to Berger are available to all members of

the particular group in question, and the

institutions themselves define the actions

of individuals.

It is very clear that putting a picture of

a saint on the wall of the living room and

installing a statue in the corner of the living

room is a reference frame for interpretation

which then proceeds to behavior matching.

In the Symbolic Interaction paradigm, this

symptom is seen as a process that involves

individuals shaping their behavior taking

into account the expectations of the people

with whom they interact. In other words,

individuals or units of action consisting of a

certain set of people, adapt or match each

other's actions to each other through a

process of interpretation.

The Social Construction Paradigm sees

this phenomenon as a form of

objectification that provides signification

by creating signs by individuals in the

community. A sign is an objectification to

exploit subjective meanings. However, the

sign only applies here and now. At least the

individuals of both communities know a

very general rule.

Muslims forbid wine drinks, forbid

eating pork, are encouraged to meet

before or after 6:00 p.m., and talks around

taboos are minimized in such a way. That

specific set of norms is to be presented as

a framework and plan of conduct. Those

norms manifest in the form of artifacts as

icons of the identity of each community.

Artifacts (in the form of photographs of

muaafir or the most influential religious

figures) are displayed on the wall or in the

corner of the living room (the heart of Our

Lady and the Cross of the Lord Jesus) as

behavioral references and are simple

grammars that give meaning and involve

involving individuals to shape their

behavior taking into account the

expectations of the people they interact

with. The important thing in this

relationship is that the individuals of both

communities can adjust and foresee the

actions of others. The result is surprising

that in Ntaram there is an ethical

movement organized in a routine space to

maintain social harmony.

1438 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

Pengir

Sender (Ite

)

The communication behavior of the

individuals of the two communions is

affiliated with some general values and

norms organized in the tradition and

customs. This is the general standard or

what Mead calls generalized other takes on

the role in which the individual refers to his

behavior in communicating and planning

actions while considering the reactions of

other individuals. Those standards include

normative habits or patterns and values

that underlie behavioral orientations.

Generalized other can dampen the

differences between the communities at sili

mai wae and ata le mai tana golo.

Communication Model of Different

Religious Communities in Ntaram

In previous descriptions, it has been

shown both explicitly and explicitly the

interrelationship between the cultural and

communication elements of the Ntaram

People to establish and maintain plural

social harmony in Ntaram. Such

phenomena give a distinctive character to

the communication patterns of the Ntaram

People. In the context of Ntaram,

communication is not merely a linear

transmission of messages but a ritual that

posits a plurality of civilization. Here the

elements of meaning and value become

very vital elements in communicating. Thus,

communicating is a series of ethical actions

that reflect cultural elements jointly

constructed by the data sili mai wae

community (characterized by Islam) and

the data le mai tana golo community

(characterized by Catholicism). As an act,

communication shapes the individual as a

Ntaram person. In a sense, communication

is not just the process of sending a

message from the sender to the recipient

and then stopping, but communication is a

humanitarian ritual, and communication

becomes a social activity. Georg Mead

(Hrdt, 2005:71) says that communication is

never just a process of conveying abstract

symbols; Communication is always a

movement in social action that invites the

individual himself to act the same as the

invitation of others. The communication

model of the Ntaram People can be

observed in the diagram below.

Receiver (

Ite

)

Recipient

It is clear that the communication

model of the Ntaram people as drawn

above specifically shows that

communication events are not merely a

process of transmitting messages, but

communication is a ritual process. This

model shows that the sender and receiver

exchange roles with each other during the

course of the communication event. This

site – Ite (we-us) pattern has two

consequences. First, the ite-ite pattern

constructed by the Ntaram people shows a

pattern of linear-familiar relationships. In

such a communication pattern Who (the

sender of the message) and Who (the

recipient of the message) are written in

capital letters as a consequence that

Marselus Robot | 1439

communication takes place between

cultured human beings. The linear-familiar

pattern is based on the value of hiring tau

(mutual respect) because of sincerity in ca

naming agu ca wa'u (inbred and

seketurunan) and because man is seen as

ba tara de Murin (as the bearer of the face

of God).

Secondly, the sender and receiver of

the message do not seek to objectify each

other which may indicate gradation and

domineering. However, both the sender

and receiver are in a socio-cultural context

that determines their role. Thus, the

relationship pattern (ite-ite) is a distinctive

style that expresses submission to the

context. The context in this pattern contains

two aspects, namely the situation which is

the physical environment in which

communication takes place, and the socio-

cultural environment, namely the value of a

naming agu ca wa'u, Chiang tau attitudes,

customs, worldview, and belief systems)

and other cultural aspects that become the

frame or context of communication.

Sensitivity to context is very important in

communicating. Sometimes context can

determine how to communicate. In certain

cases, for example, the individual of ata le

mai golo is already determined by the

context of how to communicate with the

individual at sili mai wea and vice versa.

In addition, in the communication

patterns ite (we-sender) and ite (we are

recipients) not only serve to convey

messages but serve as an expression of

who they are (as what and from what

community) because messages can only be

well received by the recipient if the way

they are delivered is appropriate. In short,

in an ite-ite communication pattern where

the message element and the impression

element come together and are equally

important. Often the element of impression

can determine the content of a message

conveyed. In short, in the case of Ntaram,

there is no communication between me

and hau (me and you), but it takes place in

it (us). The sender and receiver of the

message are ite as an ingroup reflection.

A case that relates to the above

concept explains how impressions can

affect the message. A father is invited to

attend a wa'u wa tana (ceremony of

introducing a newborn). His son who

served in Ruteng (the capital of Manggarai

Regency) wrote a letter to his father in

Ntaram. One of the crucial parts of the

letter reads as follows:

Ema, kapu haa empo dite, ata ronai.

Ami manga plan pe wa'u wa tana wulang

musi. Omo manga time ite agu ende mai

awo main. (Father, your grandson has been

born, a baby boy. We are planning a

thanksgiving event for her birth early next

month. If father and mama have time

please come).

What happened to the letter? The

hope of the child who served in Ruteng that

his parents in Ntaram would be present

would invite a major conflict. The father

conveyed a message to the person who

went to Ruteng that he would not attend

the event. The reason is, that he invites

them with times omo manga time (if da

time). That sentence seems to

underestimate their position as parents.

They feel neglected as parents. He seems to

be seen as an unimportant person by

saying omo manga time (if there is time).

The father was furious and decided not to

participate in the celebration of his

1440 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

grandson's birth. In fact, for many years

they were in conflict because of the word

omo. However, because his mother was

sickly in Ntaram, the child with his family

visited the mother in Ntaram. But, when

they arrived in Ntaram, they were barred

from entering the house. They were forced

to stay overnight with neighbors

eavesdropping on the state of their ailing

mother. After mediation by neighbors, the

child enters the house with a fine of a pig

just muun tangka taken (sorry for the

child's actions). In the context of the story,

it is understood that impressions have a

very strong influence on the message. The

use of certain words becomes a

determinant of the meaning of the

message. That is, the communication of

people asking for a message must be

conveyed impressively. Messages and

impressions are the effects that converge in

the communication rituals of Ntaram.

Furthermore, the ite-ite

communication pattern contains referential

meanings. As explained in the previous

section, the typical thing tofu attitude of

Ntaram is that humans are treated as

batara de ngaran (bearers of the likeness of

God), and human existence lives in two

realms, the virtual world and the here

world. Man himself is only a constitutive

part of the all-vast, all-unattainable, and

superpowered universe. Therefore, the

pattern of ite-ite communication has

communication that has theological

consequences. All behaviors both verbal

and nonverbal must be expressed within

the framework of Chiang tau. The pattern

of ite-ite has destroyed the identity, status,

and confusion between the sender and

recipient of the message.

Furthermore, in the above symbolic

model, there is an element called "code".

The code is a shared meaning created by

both the data sili mai wae community and

the ata le mai tana golo community. So, the

code is a sign-organizing system. Sign

systems are conventions or constructed by

both communities. The way of sitting

among men is seen as the most positive

way of sitting and so on. Proper visiting

hours, illegitimate and halal food. In short,

manners are an ethical appeal in

communicating. Likewise, for example, the

strong use of consonants and vowels in

verbal behavior is a sign system that

appears as a reflection of the differences

between the two communities. Strong

vowels and consonants can carry a clearer

message so as not to cause blurring or

misinformation. Such a situation is a form

of effort to maintain social harmony.

In the Ntaram people's communication

model, the code and context are

themselves messages. When someone

mentions the word Ntaram then the real

communication process has begun. That is,

mentioning Ntaram immediately appears

the message that several villages in the

name of Ntaram are a plural region (which

is at least known that two religions are

followed by its inhabitants. Similarly, when

you hear the word king (who is in Ntaram),

it is immediately known that the person is

from Ntaram. The code works indexically

indicating who and where the speaker is

from. Therefore, each person should

carefully plan the behavior which he

presents. Another rather distinctive code of

Ntaram putting up statues in guest rooms

or images of saints affixed to the walls of

guest rooms is a convention that is

Marselus Robot | 1441

indexical and serves as a reference for

matching behavior.

The codes (the entirety of

communication behavior) constructed

together as outlined above are finite. These

codes are oriented towards social relations,

and better denote the function of fats. The

purpose of these codes seeks to minimize

individual signals of difference. Instead, the

constructed code serves communality and

takes into account the similarities between

the speakers. Communicators and

communication are in liner line without

gradation gaps. Conversations always

contain lite paga (so master) to show

similarities between speakers and at the

same time shrink individualistic

expressions. In other words, the code

jointly constructed by both communities

bases itself on common interests shared

experiences and shared expectations. So,

code is constructed due to certain

differences in typical and occurs here and

in the interests of people's communication

here.

Ntaram people's communication

patterns are perspective. That is, the

sending and receiving components are

devoted to emotions and relationships.

Emotions focus on the quality of the

relationship between the sender and

receiver. Thus, the message is packaged in

such a way as to take into account the

family hierarchy, the social hierarchy, and

most importantly the religious differences

they adhere to. In other words, the quality

of the relationship between data sili mai

wae and ata le mai tana golo is organized

in a linear-familiar communication pattern.

Thus, it is not only the message that

becomes important, but also the effect of

the message or conation, namely on the

clarity of information (through the

selection of strong vowels and consonants),

and the dramaturgical nonverbal

expression.

Communication by considering the

social environment is one of the referential

components. That is, religious differences

become a reference for structuring and

planning the behavior of communicating

clearly and trying to be redundant.

Therefore, the site and its patterns (us and

us) with code are constructed together to

become an important element of

maintaining the relationship between the

sender and recipient of the message. Such

efforts are a form of Ntaram-style fatigue

communication. In the context of Ntaram,

redundancy of messages is needed. Thus,

the politeness of the micro-context affects

the content of the message conveyed. The

communication pattern of it is very

redundant because it is related to the

importance of a clear message so as not to

cause misunderstandings that are very

sensitive to a plural society. Therefore,

greetings such as nia ngaok, and mame ute

are a form of fats and redundant

communication that reinforces social

harmony.

The key word in Ntaram's

communication pattern is ite (we). It

contains several meanings. First, it contains

ethical appeals that reflect ingroup feelings

based on ca naming agu ca wa'u

consciousness (inbred and seketurunan).

Secondly, it is an ontological form of

Ntaram which is a synthesis between two

faith traditions, eight tribes, and two power

traditions. That is, it is not only a pragmatic

term to express respect for each other

1442 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

under homogeneous conditions, but

because they want to express differences

and each exists in those differences. Third,

ite for Ntaram is a verbal gesture to

objectify the plurality (differences)

synthesized by their history and

consciousness. However, in the process of

interaction of individuals both groups of

society do not stop interpreting and giving

meaning, but also construct or create

conventions such as rules, roles, and norms

that allow effective interaction.

Therefore, Ntram's communication

model shows a shift in emphasis on the

importance of senders and recipients, but

emphasizes the importance of how

"messages are sent", and how the recipient

"receives them". How to deliver and how

receive determines the effectiveness of the

message. How to convey and how to accept

reflects on the values, norms, belief

systems, and worldviews of the Ntaram

People. Thus, one of the hallmarks of

Ntaram people's communication is that the

"what" they communicate determines

"how" they communicate it.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in religious traditions,

differences in traditions of power, and

variations of the tribes that inhabit Ntaram

give the typical complexion of Ntaram

society with all its social consequences. It

can be said that beyond the names of

several villages, Ntaram is a unique form of

synthesis. As a synthesis, Ntaram was

formed by the confluence of eight tribes

(Mbaru Mese Tribe, Mbaru Bongko Tribe,

Mbaru Labal Tribe, Mbaru Weli Tribe, Mbaru

Cangge Tribe, Mbaru Golo Tribe, Mbaru

Munta Tribe, Mbaru Ajang Cengi Tribe). The

eight tribes spread out to form small

villages under their names but always

legitimized themselves as Ntaram people.

Ntaram, therefore, is not an identity that is

only real in the form of birth, but rather an

entity of plurality.

The walls are splattered with who they

are. Each data sili mai wae house visible on

the wall of the living room is plastered with

several sacred images (such as sufis or

Islamic imams) of the world or calendars

with Islamic nuances. On the contrary, for

ata le mai tana golo, the identity was placed

in the corner of the living room. A statue of

Jesus or a statue of Our Lady with a small

house complete with accessories that give

a religious atmosphere in the corner of the

room. It all revolves around who the

occupants of the house are and how they

are treated. The strategy of pronouncing a

special identity through the walls and

corners of the house indicates that what

appears outside the home is universal,

while the inside of the house is a space of

privacy. In a sense, the issue of religion is a

private matter. While on the street or in the

yard it becomes a humanitarian affair or a

social affair.

REFERENCES

Adam, S. Mountain Muslims. 1998.

Research Draft for the World Bank.

Adeney T. Bernard, 2000. Cross-Cultural

Social Ethics, Jogyakarta: Kanisius.

Bartels, Dieter. Muslim-Christian Civil War

in Central Maluku (Indonesia). What is

Salmin Radix Net (27/07/ 2000)?

Marselus Robot | 1443

Berger L Peter, Luckmann Thomas. 1990. A

Social Interpretation of Reality.

Jakarta: LP3ES.

Borgias M. Frans. And God Saw That It Was

Good. Positive View of Indegenous-

Primal Wisdom. Dalam Jurnal

“Melintas” Thn 18. No.57 December

2002.

Carey, W. James. 1989. Communication as

Culture: Essays Media and Society.

London: The Academic Division of

Unwin Hyman Ltd.

Creswell W.John. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry

and Research Design: Choosing

Among Five Traditions. U.S.A.: SAGE

Publications. Inc.

Denzin K. Norman, Lincoln, Yvonna S. 1998.

Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry.

U.S.A.: SAGE Publications. Inc.

Denzin K. Norman, Lincoln, Yvonna S. 1998.

Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative

Materials. U.S.A.: SAGE Publications.

Inc.

Fiske, John. Ed. Idi Subandi Ibrahim. 2004.

Culture and Communication Studies.

Bandung: Jalasutra.

Geertz Clifford. 1992. Cultural Politics.

Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Hall T. Edward. 1989.Dze Dance of Life: The

Other Dimension of Time. New York:

Anchor Books A Division of Random

House, Inc.

Haryatmoko. 2002. Political Culture of

Courtesy and Plurality, in Esei-Esei

Bentara. Jakarta: PT. Kompas Media

Nusantara.

Herts, Jana C. 2003. Secularism and

Individual Rights in Efforts to Fight

Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in

Indonesia in Indonesian Anthropology

th. XXXVII, no.72.

Hodgson, G.S. Marshall. 1999. The Venture

of Islam. Faith and History in World

Civilization. Jakarta: Paramadina.

Hugh, Miall and Olver Ramsbotham, Tom

Woodhouse. 2000. Peaceful

Resolution of Contemporary Conflicts.

Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

James, William. 2003. The Varieties of

Religious Experience (translator Luthfi

Anshari). Jogyakarta: Windows.

Johnson, P.D. 1990. Classical and Modern

Sociological Theory, (Terj. Robert

Lawang, Volume 1). Jakarta: PT.

Gramedia.

Littlejohn, Stephen W.1996. Theories of

Human Communication. California:

Wadswarth.

Mulyana, Deddy; Rakhmat, Jaluddin. 1993.

Intercultural Communication. A Guide

to Communication with People of

Different Cultures. Bandung: Teenager

Rosda Karya.

O'Dea Thomas F. 2002. Empirical Religion:

Religion in the Struggle of Social

Reality. Surabaya: Student Library and

LP2IF LIBRARY.

Ritzer, George. 1992. Sociology of Double-

Paradigma Science (Alimandan's

Copyist). Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Robot, Marsel. 'Beo " Website of religiosity

of the Manggarai People, Kompas

General Daily, April 15, 2005.

1444 | The Walls of The House as A Grammar af Diversity (Communication Model of Catholic

and Islamic Societies In Ntaram)

Sewang M., Ahmad. 2005. Islamization of

the Kingdom of Gowa. Jakarta: Torch.

Toda, N. Dami. 1999. Manggarai Seeks

Enlightenment Historiography. Ende-

Flores: Nusa Indah.

Verheijen, J.A.J. 1991. Manggarai and the

Supreme Form. Jakarta: LIPI RUL.

Widyatnika, M. 2004. History of Islam in

East Nusa Tenggara. Kupang:

Madrasah Development Center

Regional Office of the Ministry of

Religious Affairs of East Nusa

Tenggara Province.

for possible open-access

publication

under the terms and conditions of the Creative

Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).