QUESTIONING LGBT EXISTENCE IN INDONESIA: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE STRATEGIES ON LIVE DEBATE TVONE EPISODE OF “PERNIKAHAN SEJENIS”

The emergence of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) recently has become a ‘hot issue’ in Indonesia and it provokes pros and cons in the society. In this study, the live debate which was broadcasted on TVOne, the episode of ‘Pernikahan Sejenis’ (‘the Same-Sex Marriage’) was taken as the data and also as the representation of the society ‘reactions’ in accordance with LGBT issue. This study aims to know: (1) what kinds of discursive strategies applied in the debate based on ideological discourse structure by van Dijk (2000) as well as its implication towards LGBT existence in Indonesia, (2) how LGBT existence in Indonesia is represented through discursive strategies applied and (3) whether this debate represents the change of the society perspective towards LGBT existence in Indonesia. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was used as an approach to reveal the opaque relation between language, power and ideology. The data were analyzed by using the socio-cognitive model by van Dijk with content analysis method. The result shows that there were nineteen various strategies applied in the debate and the concept of ‘Ideological Square’ was well-represented through various strategies applied in the debate. The frequency of the strategies applied implies that LGBT belongs to minority which is ‘oppressed’ in the society. Furthermore, from the four domains of the various strategies, it is represented that LGBT is ‘controversial’, ‘unacceptable’, ‘irrational’ and ‘opposition’ in Indonesia. At the same time, people believe that LGBT also ‘exists’ among the society. The contestation between ‘pro’ and ‘contra’ group in the debate representing LGBT is not considered as ‘Indonesian’ culture. It is stirred by the nationalism ideology which serves as the obstacle for LGBT acceptance in Indonesia. On the other hand, the debate also depicts a social change that LGBT is no longer ‘taboo’, which is showed by the discourse practices in this debate