A Reflection about Honesty

In short-story of “Kisah Dikantor Pos” Created by Muhammad Ali

By: Riyan Hidayat^[1]

Kisah dikantor pos are one of the short-stories from Horizon Sastra Indonesia II. This short-stories contained and setting out about honesty concerning to thin man when he is in the post office to take him money order. It is interesting in the beginning that on offer by the writer come from Surabaya, with glossing the best mandate inside the context of the short-story.  Although in the first read this short-story may be we can’t interest if we just look from the title. Many people may be interpret about the general delineation that this short-story just a little story about someone who is in the post office. But, someone who read this short-story can understand if he has read this short-story. Further in this short-story becoming reflection concerning to official post office that was getting him rightful authority. Ordinary plot those given in this story like a stories of another short-story which suffering themes in the beginning and happy ending in the end of story.  But the content from that plot is not like it; however the plot structure is very easy to digestible. This case becoming interesting to negotiable in appreciate of literature really structure content analysis method in this short-story.

This short-story is a creation from the writer who was born in Surabaya. Muhammad Ali can be said to be writer not only can be relied on but also productive. Almost of years he publicated his creation, in 1952 he has publicated his creation with the title is 5 tragedy until creation with the title is Siksa dan Bayangan to 1954. That is just little partly of his creation, there are still many of his creation that we can’t enumerate. Muhammad Ali passes away in June 2^nd 1998 in his birth city. He leaves his the best creation. Besides a fiction, he is also a scientific writer that is Teknik Penghayatan Puisi that publication in 1963.

2. Base of theory

Essence of literature labor is a merger between output of someone man of letters imagination with life in a factual manner. The result of creative action of human being it is more than higher percentage from the fact. Because of that, man of letters not imitates without ceremony or set an example from the fact. Therefore, for understanding literature labor, the reader has to know a variety of theory, that one of the other theories which will be investigated mention below.

Structuralism is appealing to some critics because it adds certain objectivity, a SCIENTIFIC objectivity, for the realm of literary studies (which have often been criticized as purely subjective/impressionistic). This scientific objectivity is achieved by subordinating "parole" to "langue;" actual usage is abandoned in favor of studying the structure of a system in the abstract. Thus structuralist readings ignore the specificity of actual texts and treat them as if they were like the patterns produced by iron filings moved by magnetic force--the result of some impersonal force or power, not the result of human effort.

In structuralism, the individuality of the text disappears in favor of looking at patterns, systems, and structures. Some structuralists (and a related school of critics, called the Russian Formalists) propose that ALL narratives can be charted as variations on certain basic universal narrative patterns.

In this way of looking at narratives, the author is canceled out, since the text is a function of a system, not of an individual. The Romantic humanist model holds that the author is the origin of the text, its creator, and hence is the starting point or progenitor of the text. Structuralism argues that any piece of writing, or any signifying system, has no origin, and that authors merely inhabit pre-existing structures (langue) that enable them to make any particular sentence (or story)--any parole. Hence the idea that is "language speaks us," rather than that we speak language. We don't originate language; we inhabit a structure that enables us to speak; what we (mis)perceive as our originality is simply our recombination of some of the elements in the pre-existing system. Hence every text, and every sentence we speak or write, is made up of the "already written."

By focusing on the system itself, in a synchronic analysis, structuralists cancel out history. Most insist, as Levi-Strauss does, that structures are universal, therefore timeless. Structuralists can't account for change or development; they are uninterested, for example, in how literary forms may have changed over time. They are not interested in a text's production or reception/consumption, but only in the structures that shape it.

In erasing the author, the individual text, the reader, and history, structuralism represented a major challenge to what we now call the "liberal humanist" tradition in literary criticism.

The HUMANIST model presupposed:

1.) That there is a real world out there that we can understand with our rational minds.

2.) That language is capable of (more or less) accurately depicting that real world..

3.) That language is a product of the individual writer's mind or free will, meaning that we determine what we say, and what we mean when we say it; that language thus expresses the essence of our individual beings (and that there is such a thing as an essential unique individual "self").

4.) the SELF--also known as the "subject," since that's how we represent the idea of a self in language, by saying I, which is the subject of a sentence--or the individual (or the mind or the free will) is the center of all meaning and truth; words mean what I say they mean, and truth is what I perceive as truth. I create my own sentences out of my own individual experiences and need for individual expression.

The STRUCTURALIST model argues

1.) That the structure of language itself produces "reality"--that we can think only through language, and therefore our perceptions of reality are all framed by and determined by the structure of language.

2.) That language speaks us; that the source of meaning is not an individual's experience or being, but the sets of oppositions and operations, the signs and grammars that govern language. Meaning doesn't come from individuals, but from the system that governs what any individual can do within it.

3.) Rather than seeing the individual as the center of meaning, structuralism places THE STRUCTURE at the center--it's the structure that originates or produces meaning, not the individual self. Language in particular is the center of self and meaning; I can only say "I" because I inhabit a system of language in which the position of subject is marked by the first personal pronoun, hence my identity is the product of the linguistic system I occupy.

This is also where deconstruction starts to come in. The leading figure in deconstruction, Jacques Derrida, looks at philosophy (Western metaphysics) to see that any system necessarily posits a CENTER, a point from which everything comes, and to which everything refers or returns. Sometimes it's God, sometimes it's the human self, the mind, and sometimes it's the unconscious, depending on what philosophical system (or set of beliefs) one is talking about.

Here's the basic method of deconstruction: find a binary opposition. Show how each term, rather than being polar opposite of its paired term, is actually part of it. Then the structure or opposition which kept them apart collapses, as we see with the terms nature and culture in Derrida's essay. Ultimately, you can't tell which is which, and the idea of binary opposites loses meaning, or is put into "play" (more on this in the next lecture). This method is called "Deconstruction" because it is a combination of construction/destruction--the idea is that you don't simply construct new system of binaries, with the previously subordinated term on top, nor do you destroy the old system--rather, you deconstruct the old system by showing how its basic units of Structuration (binary pairs and the rules for their combination) contradict their own logic.

It is three of preference of blooming of French structuralism: first, structuralism critic with central prominent figure is Merleau-Ponty and Barthes. Second: structuralize narrator logy that lean on concept of Vladimir Propp versus Greimas. Third, text description structuralize-linguistic is exclusive concept from Claude Levi-Strauss and Michael Riffaterre concept.

It is literature theory which at the sight the creation as the autonomy world, the world that can abdicate the self from who is the writer, and social cultural. Literature labor must be look at as an autonomous object and self-assertive the literature labor as a verbal structure autonomic with intern coherence. In this theory interlaced between language concepts (linguistic) with studying the literature labor. In the best metamorphose manner although in an elected manner.

It was used literature-structuralism in this note to have something as a purpose to understand type that contained in this short-story. And also understand trusteeship that contained in this short-story. Why this short-story suitable to be rap of structuralism, because this short-story has an easy plot that can understand by amateur letters critic. Talking about structuralism is talking about form of fiction. Literature Structuralism theory is a phenomenological theory concerning the texts of literature that emphasize whole of relation between a variety of unsure text. Literature structuralism is giving the spaciousness to letters researcher determines what the component that will be get signification priority. (Yoseph Yapi Taum, 1997:39)

3. Analysis

            A short-story of Kisah dikantor Pos created by Muhammad Ali is a short-story that has mandated concerning the text of that short-story. This short-story has advanced plot, when this story is beginning from the character that the man who has thin body is in the post office. From this, the story is begun; honesty is filling or kills for the thin man. Because he indeed he is old and faded and he does not have a character like a man of properties.    

The turning point or the complication is begun when the old women post office worker but she doesn’t want to called by Madam. But, she wants to be called by Miss. Beginning from the thin man who has a insigne card which is different with the picture in the insigne card. The old women is hesitant the identity of that man. According to her, there is a big deception to her if that was, because if it did, she actually will get warning and also an invective because she was wrong giving the money to someone that not rightful authority.

            …ketika tiba-tiba muncul kembali wajah lelaki kurus kecil orang pertama yang telah ia(pegawai pos) layaninya tadi, dimuka loket seraya berkata, “Maaf, Nyonya, saya mengganggu lagi. Tidakkah…” “Nona!” sela si pegawai, ketus.

Seketika lelaki itu terdiam termangu memandangi roman muka si pegawai wanita. Ada sedikit rasa mual naik membayangkan diwajahnya. “Maaf, Nona, saya tida tahu,” katanya kemudian.

“ya, ya, ada apa lagi?” desak si pegawai.

“tadi agaknya telah terjadi suatu kekeliruan ketika Nona membayarkan uang poswesel kepada saya, sebab…”

“Mana bisa keliru?” si pegawai menyela dengan cepat.

“seharusnya saya terima tiga ratus rupiah, bukan? Kalau tak salah sekian itulah angka yang tertulis dalam poswesel saya.”…

Quotation above is a climax from a short-story of kisah di kantor pos. why that quotation is a climax of this story? Because of here, blood tense of the official woman begin go up on the top. The next is that woman official worker was wrong giving the money that should deliver.  Actually the thin man gets much money from the old woman. He doesn’t protest because a less of money. His mind tells that it is a mistake and the money is not his mine, because in his money order, the money was written of three thousand rupiah.

When the man brings the money back to the old woman, he gives the money but with different amount. Properly the man brings the money back with the amount is one thousand rupiah. In the other hand, he get calamity on the way and then he uses part of the money. When he backs to the post office he just brings back the money which amount is eighty rupiah to official woman worker, and the woman is anger more and more win out. There are the conflict and climax going on.

 Falling action going on when someone coming with solid body try to break up a fight, the man giving solution with giving amounts that really property of the old woman. He pride of the thin man. He whisper to the thin man that he also same as what was going on to him. He receives more money. According to man with solid body, that the thin man must be enviable, because in this world it’s very rare someone that has an honesty who want to brings back the money to the owner.

Figurative language that was shown in this short-story has figurative language that uses several of kind of figure of speech. Figure of speech that contained in this short-story is usual but has influence enough to understanding by the reader. Teasing allusion that protrusion is very sharp, although the writer use the ordinary language in general.

An honesty that is something which is very pressed in this short-story, in the beginning we can’t realize that is it true the short-story is trusteeship about honesty. This case is really working from the title of the short-story. Really, the title of the short-story is about story the man in the post office. We can’t know fully about this short-story, if we haven’t read it fully. The short-story is very interesting. Honesty it is really a characteristic certain that may be very difficult someone to doing that. Honesty sometimes makes us misfortune. People only think for what thing him honest because in the end he also got beaten. But at the bottom an honesty that make our self satisfied at in order wise that we were hidden to another.

A mistake that sometimes makes someone becoming the other is not having honesty. Scared that raises up in our body and finally hideaway honesty. Finally it is only an untruth which appears in our eyes. This short-story tries to open eyes its readers with a theme which is based on honesty with a character that is basically cannot imagine that man can do something like that. Back to reader selves, did we do it or it is only honesty.

Reference:

Bertens, K. 2006. Filsafat barat dan kontemporer Prancis. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka.

Ratna, Nyoman Kutha, 2007. Teori penelitian sastra, pustaka pelajar. Yogjakarta.

Richard Harland, 2006. Superstrukturalisme: pengantar komprehensif.

Peursen, Van, 1988. Strategie van de cultuur (Strategi kebudayaan). Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

---

^[1] Riyan Hidayat, the owner of this blog