Buku relatif kecil F. Budi Hardiman, dosen di Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkarta, di Jakarta, ini merupakan sumbangan penting bagi pustaka berbahasa Indonesia tentang hak-hak asasi manusia. Bahkan, setahu peninjau buku ini, cara penulis mendekati hal hak-hak asasi manusia dalam pustaka berbahasa Jerman dan Inggris pun masih dicari. Kekhasan buku ini adalah bahwa Budi Hardiman membahas hak-hak asasi manusia dengan mendiskusikan enam kontroversi paling utama di sekitarnya, yaitu (1) kritik Hannah Arendt terhadap klaim universalitas hak-hak asasi manusia dari sudut republikanisme; (2) (...) polemik dari sudut teologi Islam; (3) tantangan dari sudut multikulturalisme; (4) hak-hak asasi manusia berhadapan dengan nilai-nilai Asia; (5) tuntutan agar deklarasi hak-hak asasi manusia dilengkapi oleh daftar kewajiban-kewajiban asasi; dan (6) pertanyaan mengapa dalam budaya-budaya Indonesia “peradaban hak-hak asasi manusia sulit terwujud.” Diskursus ini bukan hanya memiliki relevansi teoretis tinggi, tetapi juga langsung relevan di Indonesia. Budi Hardiman bertolak dari tesis “bahwa ide, motif atau pun intensi dasar yg mendorong praksis hak-hak asasi manusia adalah ’tuntutan universal’ untuk melindungi manusia dari pengalaman-pengalaman negatif dalam modernitas” (hlm. 18). Tesis ini langsung mengoreksi sebuah salah paham serius yang juga merancukan debat dalam BPUPKI pada Juli 1945: Bahwa hak-hak asasi manusia merupakan produk khas liberalisme untuk mengamankan kebebasan maksimal individu terhadap komunitas; jadi bahwa hak-hak asasi manusia merupakan wahana individualisme dan ekspresi sikap egois di mana individu seakan-akan hanya mau menjamin hak-haknya sendiri. Tetapi bukan itulah maksud inti hak-hak asasi manusia. Hak-hak asasi manusia merupakan jawaban terhadap kondisi terancam dan terhina manusia berhadapan dengan kekuatan-kekuatan raksasa modernitas. Hak-hak asasi manusia mau menjamin keutuhan mereka yang tidak berdaya untuk membela diri sendiri. Karena itu, pengakuan terhadap hak-hak asasi manusia menjadi bukti dan tolok ukur tanggung jawab sosial dalam suatu masyarakat................. Faktor kelima adalah agama. Agama sebenarnya memiliki “intuisi kemanusian yang melampaui suku-suku dan bangsa” (hlm. 141), akan tetapi agama bisa juga membatasi intuisi itu pada warganya sendiri. Maka unsur kunci dalam tantangan hak-hak asasi manusia bagi teologi Islam yang dibahas dalam bab 2 adalah perluasan dari perspektif yang terbatas pada umatnya sendiri ke perspektif “manusia qua manusia” (hlm. 54). Makin wawasan dibatasi pada syariah, loncatan itu kelihatan sulit. Tetapi loncatan itu harus berani dilakukan agar kesulitan Islami dengan beberapa hak asasi manusia, misalnya hak pergantian agama atau larangan terhadap hukuman kejam, dapat diatasi. Tantangan multikulturalisme: menjadi pertanyaan bagaimana kalau terjadi pertentangan antara kekhasan suatu budaya, biasanya budaya minoritas, dengan tuntutan hak asasi manusia dibahas dalam bab 3. Buku Budi Hardiman ini perlu dibaca oleh semua yang prihatin dengan diskursus hak-hak asasi manusia di negara kita yang tetap masih klise dan sering kurang bermutu. Penegasan inti penulis, bahwa tujuan dan fungsi jaminan hak asasi manusia adalah perlindungan bagi mereka yang menderita, miskin dan tereksploitasi harus terus-menerus diangkat. Alih-alih jalan ke egoisme dan individualisme hak-hak asasi manusia merupakan bukti solidaritas suatu masyarakat dengan warga-warganya yang paling lemah. (Franz Magnis-Suseno, Program Pascasarjana, Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Jakarta). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:April 3, 2010 (11:17 am) C:\Users\Milt\Desktop\backup copy of Ken's G\WPData\TYPE2902\russell 29,2 050 red.wpd Reviews 181 MARRIAGE AND MORALSy REVISITED Philip Ebersole Greater Rochester Russell Set Rochester, ny 14607, usa [email protected] Timothy J. Madigan Philosophy / St. John Fisher College Rochester, ny 14618, usa [email protected] Katie Roiphe. Uncommon Arrangements: Seven Portraits of Married Life in London Literary Circles, 1910–1939. New York: The Dial Press, 2007. Pp. 343. isbn 978-0-385-33937-7 (hb). (...) us$26; cdn$34. There is a spectre haunting Katie Roiphe’s exploration of Edwardian/Georgian marriage in literary London circles: the spectre of Bertrand Russell, most especially the author of Marriage and Moralsz (1929), a work written in the middle of the period she examines. While Russell makes a few guest appearances in April 3, 2010 (11:17 am) C:\Users\Milt\Desktop\backup copy of Ken's G\WPData\TYPE2902\russell 29,2 050 red.wpd 182 Reviews the text, and while he knew almost everyone in the book (sometimes biblically), it is surprising that Roiphe does not take the opportunity to connect the rather disparate couples she discusses with Russell’s contemporary exploration of the meaning of marriage in the post-Victorian era. She focuses on couples living together from directly before the First World War to directly before the Second World War, a period of tremendous change and radical social movements: Modernism, Socialism, Freudianism,and, perhaps most important to the overall structure of the book, SuTragism/Feminism. One of the most telling aspects of Uncommon Arrangements is the focus on somez—zfor the timesz—zuncommonly liberated women. Katie Roiphe is a journalist and an instructor at New York University who has written extensively about modern marriage. Her Uncommon Arrangements tells the story of seven married couples in early twentieth-century England, all of whom tried to live outside the framework of conventional society. They revolted against Victorian values and sought to establish relations between men and women on an equal basis. Most of these couples travelled in the same circles as Russell, and were subject to the same intellectual inXuences. In Marriage and Moralsz—zwritten, ironically, during the time of the slow and painful dissolution of his own second marriagez—zRussell attempted to advocate a rational code of sexual ethics. He believed in openness and honesty about sex and denied that marital Wdelity was the be-all and end-all of morality. The true basis of morality, he said, was respect for the rights and feelings of your partner. Marriage and Morals was far ahead of its time in arguing that so-called “open marriages” (as well as couples living together without going through a marriage ceremony)were perfectly moral, so longas both partners accepted the conditions and did not engage in any deceptive acts. The couples discussed in Uncommon Arrangementsz—zwhile all were involved in relationships that could charitably be called “open”z—zdid not necessarily adhere to Russell’s “no deception” rule. Still, they provide interesting test cases for the idea that you can create a lasting marriage based on your own feelings and ideas without regard for convention. Interestingly, Roiphe does not deal with some likely suspects from this time period: the Lawrences, Woolfs, Eliots, and Bertrand and Dora Russell. In the Wrst chapter, Roiphe deals with the “modus vivendiy” between Wells and his second wife, Jane. Wells rebelled against his convention by Wrst of all divorcing his Wrst wife, Isabel, in 1895, and marrying his cousin Mary Catherine shortly thereafter. As a sign of his domineering personality, he renamed her “Jane”. Wells refused to accept limits on his sexual ambitions. As he put it once, “Except insofar as aTection put barriers around me, I have done what I pleased so that every bit of sexual impulse in me has expressed itselfz” (p. 36). In 1901, Jane gave birth to their son George Philip Wells. It was a troubled birth, and H.yG. ran oT. Instead of becoming angry, Jane understood and promised not to make too many demands on him. Thus their modus vivendiy. H.yG. April 3, 2010 (11:17 am) C:\Users... (shrink)