Child Suicide

“Suppose the sky is empty, and life isn’t having purpose anymore, should we kill ourselves? Should we concede our defeat, and determined this life isn’t reasonably to keep on anymore”. This is a philosophy question which submitted by Kirilov on Les Possédés, an inquiring thought from the absurd character on that Dostoievsky masterpiece.

Suicide is an individual phenomenon, weird and elusive, and also offered a different view about death.

Among realities which place suicide as an extraordinary theme, Albert Camus considered suicide was the only philosophical problem which actually serious. Evaluate whether this life proper to go through or not, was the principle answer about philosophy.

Camus philosophies struggle on revealed suicide at the absurd world provide honestly perspective (and also gladden), that human being have to accept their weird condition.

What all said by Camus, and Kirilov too, was a relevant thing at our present life. Suicide stills a concrete reality, apart from its value philosophical debate. Wherein opportunity for suicide escalation quite large, together with increasing of our life pressure.

Global inclination regarding to our complicated future not only give an extremely space for interpretation of Charles Darwin’s “survival of fittest”, but also possibility of suicidal escalation. Both consequences equally worst.

Nowadays, from television or newspaper at our family room, on previous years when they found their freedom once again, we’re easy accessible to a suicidal news (which as popular as the other criminal news). High acceleration of suicidal statistic is a worrying fact. Moreover, if we’re seeing reality that suicidal victim not only an adult, but also children in school age.

Complex Determinant

Traditionally, suicide was comprehensible as an extreme self-defeating behavior, which majority done by an adult with personal reason. Emile Durkheim research which famously explored about suicidal rate in several Europe countries concludes: functionally, suicide was consequence from slack off social integration, although its determinant has variation and individual intensely.

Social background, added with life pressure, visibly make sense as a dominant reason for adult to commit suicide. Nevertheless, when suicide happen to our child in significant amount, we ought to inquired and pay close attention to this symptom. How children, with their innocence and playful contentment, could do this?

An outcome of Kaoru Yamamoto research toward 1.814 children (in USA, Australia, Canada, Egypt, Japan and Philippines) attempted to help us to understand this idiosyncrasy.

Dr Yamamoto, psychologist at University of Colorado in USA, asserted how an embarrassment could bestow a solid blow to children self-esteem and their mental state. The idea when children detected doing something bad, on children mind, will have meaning that they always seem bad. Or, if embarrassed, they thought that they never attain their self-esteem as before again.

Self-image of children shaped continually on a brittle process. As a consequence, children tend to exaggerate something out of proportion. And occasionally, conscience-stricken of children is more fervent than adult.

If we observe child suicide carefully, much case is caused by parent’s lack of ability to fulfill children needs, which finally create a solid blow to a child: an embarrassed sense and inferiority complex among their friends.

These facts, as said by Ann Epstein, psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School in USA, could summarize that the most usual trigger on child suicide is an embarrassing experience.

These explanations not only give a warning that parents doesn’t actually understand about what things which make children feel stress and shattered their self-esteem, decided what happen (and thinking by children) too quick, and often take a hasty decision.

But, these explanations also focus on the family and peer’s effectiveness role, as an early social circle for child. How family and peer running their traditional function to support child development, with produce a warmth and familiarities atmosphere which offer a secure state. These functions could translate as a root of social integration to our society.

Because of that, present families have to carry out more complex responsibilities. They’re demand to supplied a proper life for their children, protected from external jeopardy, and included maintain their sensitivity toward their child mental health.

Social Disintegration?

On the other perspective which still linked, if we believe in what Durkheim done on his research, we have to relate suicidal escalation, whether on child or adult, as an inclination features of weaken social integration to our society.

This hypothesis seems reasonable. On wider scale, we’re metamorphoses at unlimited global village. We’re face with west civilization, which its principal spirits is consumerism, belief in capitalist machine, materialism, and individualisms life style and which related with it: absolute freedom.

Some of that values manifested on our completely apathetic toward anguish and problem of the other. This altruism deficiency afterwards becomes a trigger for social agitation, vertical conflicts, and even suicide. This is a subtle deadly disease on the heart of our society.

However, all sorts of determinant (and also consequence) that mentioned above is only strengthen suicidal phenomenon as a complex psycho-social reality. Because, not only talk about individuals, family and society. But also about education which should have been sharpen society’s emotional state, expand and share values which said by Camus: human beings have to accept a desire which planted inside them wisely. A desire for obtains clarity in the middle of obscurity and excessively uncertainties.

And the important one is an optimal achievement from our government to manage society, and bring prosperity which is evenly distributed through all kinds of improvement programs and sustainable development.

*Ahmad Rafsanjani – www.heilraff.blogspot.com

Also published at Local Newspaper, Pikiran Rakyat - December 01, 2005.

Bertahan Untuk Waras, Dan Lawan!

Ketika reformasi dihembuskan, kebebasan berbicara dan berpendapat memperoleh begitu banyak ruang untuk dimanfaatkan. Hampir setiap hari, kita disuguhkan narasi yang bernada protes, yang menceritakan rakyat miskin yang menjadi pesakitan dimana-mana, disertai perpaduan gagasan yang kerap mengikutinya: penguasa tanpa hati nurani, dan juga bermental demang.

Dengan melimpahnya ruang publik yang dapat kita akses, realitas ketimpangan sosial sudah menjadi rutinitas, bahkan makin bertambah tiap harinya. Berbagai produk jurnalisme tersebut merupakan satu bentuk dari volonte generale, suara orang banyak, yang tidak pernah lelah menyapa ruang publik kita.

Fakta ini bukanlah hal baru. Sebagian dari kita paham benar dalam tahun-tahun belakangan ini, bahwa kemiskinan adalah komoditas dan program pemberantasannya sekedar politik wacana dari penguasa.

Dalam saat-saat tertentu, kita terkadang mengalami apa yang disebut Sissela Bok dalam buku pentingnya, Mayhem (1998), sebagai compassion fatigue. Yakni, keletihan yang membuat kita tidak sanggup lagi merasa terharu ataupun berbelas kasihan.

Dari gejala defisiensi empati inilah yang memaksa Taufiq Ismail meminta kita untuk sekedar bertahan waras ditengah ketimpangan sosial-ekonomi yang aneh ini.

Lalu, apakah sebatas mengetahui, dan memaklumkan realitas ketimpangan ini sudahlah cukup? Jelas tidak cukup. Ada pilihan lain yang lebih mendesak dan konstruktif, dibanding hanya bertahan untuk waras saja.

Relasi Penguasa-Rakyat
Diskursus untuk menelisik ketertindasan rakyat miskin membuat kita terseret dalam perdebatan mengenai relasi penguasa-rakyat. Rakyat yang di-subordinasi secara sistematik. Bahkan ketika mereka berteriak dan melakukan protes-pun, belum menjamin bahwa aspirasi dan harapan mereka akan didengarkan penguasa.

Dalam ingatan sejarah, selama bertahun-tahun kita mengalami depolitisasi. Kita tenggelam dalam demokrasi terpimpin konstitusional semasa rezim orde baru, dengan semua kebijakan bersumber pada satu poros kekuasaan.

Demokrasi yang berlaku saat itu adalah formalistik. Kita, seperti yang dikeluhkan Marx, hanya diberi kesempatan berpartisipasi aktif dalam pemilu saja, dan untuk selanjutnya penguasa yang berhak menentukan semua hal.

Penguasa (dalam bingkai negara) tampak berhasil menguasai basis-basis pikiran (kognitif) kita, melumpuhkan kesadaran kritis dan kemampuan afektif, serta membuat kita powerless dan menerima berbagai rekayasa dari ritus-ritus penindasan yang dilestarikan selama bertahun-tahun. Manipulasi kesadaran inilah yang dimaknai Antonio Gramsci sebagai hegemoni.

Hingga saat ini, ketika reformasi menjanjikan banyak perubahan dan kebebasan, roh demokrasi formalistik masih terlihat. Kita menyadari, hegemoni negara sungguh kental.

Realitasnya, sekali lagi, terlihat dengan jelas. Protes rakyat banyak sekedar rutinitas, responnya pun minimalis. Krisis partisipasi rakyat adalah kelaziman, dari level perencanaan hingga evaluasi program. Atau, kalaupun terjadi interaksi antara penguasa-rakyat, sebagian besar bersifat kosmetik dan superfisial.

Counter Hegemony
Sindrom ketidakmampuan kita, bukan semata rakyat miskin, dalam mempengaruhi kebijakan yang diambil penguasa semestinya mendesak kita untuk memperbaiki relasi penguasa-rakyat. Proses ini, jika tidak muncul dari kesadaran tinggi elite dan penguasa, maka harus muncul dari kita sendiri.

Menurut Gramsci pula, upaya meningkatkan kekuatan diametral rakyat di mata penguasa adalah dengan menciptakan hegemoni tandingan. Yakni, proses penyadaran kognitif dalam lanskap (sosial, budaya, politik dan ekonomi) yang mengalami ketertindasan.

Program-program pengembalian kesadaran rakyat yang tertindas diawali dengan kristalisasi komitmen moral dan keprihatian kita terhadap realitas kesenjangan sosial dan ketidak-adilan.

Secara tekstual, kesadaran sosial (dan komitmen moral) adalah modal awal dari gerakan kolektif rakyat dalam transformasi struktur masyarakat yang lebih adil. Modal ini lalu dipertajam dengan mengkloningkan doktrin pemberdayaan rakyat, memperbaiki kualitas pendidikan, repolitisasi dan pemulihan hak-hak kerakyatan.

Jika kita melihat keadaan sekarang, upaya meningkatkan posisi collective bargaining rakyat vis a vis penguasa memang membutuhkan proses apokaliptik yang panjang dan berliku.

Meskipun demikian, saat sekarang, kita harus memutuskan bagaimana sebaiknya menyikapi realitas ketimpangan ini. Pilihan yang lebih baik untuk ini adalah apa yang ditegaskan oleh penyair Wiji Thukul: hanya ada satu kata, lawan!

Lawan! merupakan interpretasi terpenting dari filsafat acte-nya Marx. Sudah saatnya kita mengurangi habitus retorika, berwacana dan memperdebatkan sesuatu. Karena apa yang dipertaruhkan (masyarakat miskin yang bertambah banyak, sekarat, dan mulai kehilangan kesabaran) sungguh besar.

Juga harus tetap kita percayai bahwa ruh lawan! disini bisa berarti: kita sedang bergerak aktif menuju kondisi dimana kita akan memiliki social awareness yang tinggi, mampu mengorganisasikan diri, merencanakan, dan membangun dalam komunitas lokal serta memiliki kapasitas dalam memecahkan masalah berbasis self-help.