SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE

EXISTENCE OF THE STEREOTYPICAL FRAMES OF LECTURERS AND
STUDENTS IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM IN INDONESIA

Suardi1, Andi Agustang2, Jumadi3

1
Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar
2,3
Universitas Negeri Makassar
1
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Suardi, Andi Agustang, Jumadi. Symbolic Violence towards Students in the Context of the Existence of
the Stereotypical Frames of Lecturers and Students in the Higher Education System in Indonesia. –
Palarch’s Journal of Archaralogy of Egypt/Egyptogy 17(2), 249-258. ISSN 1567-214X

Keywords: Symbolic violence, Stereotypical frames, Education system.

ABSTRACT
Symbolic violence towards students has implications for the lecture system. It is fulfilled by the dominance of the
habitus and the mastery of the accumulation of social, cultural, economic, and symbolic capital as the social practice
in the education system. The purpose of the study is to analyze the fundamental factors of symbolic violence against
students, the mechanism of the existence of stereotypical frames of the lecturers and students, and the design of
empowerment for students to avoid symbolic violence from lecturers. The study uses a case study qualitative
research approach in which the determination of research informants is by purposive sampling based on informant
criteria (key, key informants, and additional informants). The focus of the research is on symbolic violence,
stereotypes, and empowerment. The research instrument is the researcher himself as the main instrument for
collecting data through interviews, observations, data documentation, data reduction, data categorization, data
display, and concluding. The techniques used to test the validity of the data is the triangulation techniques, which are
time triangulation and data source triangulation. The results show the occurrence of symbolic violence against
students in which lecturers committed symbolic violence through lecture contracts, lecture schedules, lecture
material, lecture methods, and the assessment of student learning outcomes. The violence from the lecturers to the
students is done through the production, distribution, and reproduction of the specific images or stereotypes for
lecturers and students. The positive stereotypes are given to lecturers and negative stereotypes to students. The
design of empowerment is done through social learning that takes a long time by using bottom-up strategy, critical
theory, and the value of class equality. Students and lecturers act as actors to lead changes in students (single
learning), and in the lecture system (double-loop learning).

249
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

BACKGROUND
Violence is a term that refers to an event that is terrible, frightening, painful, or even
deadly. The current phenomenon of violence has colored almost all aspects of social life,
from politics, culture to education. Various cases of violence occurred throughout 2017,
including humanitarian tragedies and crimes of religious minority Rohingya women
(Thontowi, J.2013, Yumitro, G. 2017, Fernandes, I. 2017), violence against children
(Sutrisminah, E. 2019), violence against wives in the household (Jannah, HF 2002), and
violence against women in the public domain (Subhan, Z. 2004), violence against
students in schools (Amini, YSJ 2008), and violence or bullying at school (Nanang
Martono, 2012). These cases show that power is a severe problem. However, the above
cases are phenomena of physical and psychological violence whose forms are easily
recognized, and their impact is easy to observe. Still, many parties are not aware of other
forms of violence that almost always occur every day; this form of violence is "symbolic
violence."

Pierre Bourdieu (1993) explains the concept of symbolic violence as the mechanism used
by upper-class groups that dominate the social structure of society to "impose" ideology,
culture, habits, or lifestyle on the lower class groups that they dominate. Symbolic
violence is reproduced in daily interactions (Khanal, P. (2017). Bourdieu's theory
discusses symbolic power (Loyal, S. 2017). As a result, the lower classes are forced to
accept, undergo, practice, and recognize that the top-class habitus is the proper one for
them. In contrast, the lower-class way is the habitus that should be "thrown away."
Habitus means the habit or appearance (Bourdieu in Fashri, Fauci, 2014: 93), or
equipment for certain substances, as stated by Aristotle, in Bagus Takwin (2003),
regarding the existence of division. Habitus that has been so strongly embedded and
settles into physical behavior is called Hexis (Wattimena, R. A 2012). Symbolic violence
is a model of cultural and social domination that takes place unconsciously in people's
lives, which includes acts of discrimination against groups, races, ethnicities, or certain
genders (Hasfi, N. 2011).

The mechanism of symbolic violence is manifested in various ways, such as through

the development of the stereotype. The stereotype is the process of generalizing the
whole class (Wood, W., & Neal, DT 2009), assigning values to something (S
Sukmono, FG, & Junaedi, F. 2014), and stereotyping as the practice of using
language as a discourse strategy (Eriyanto, 2011). It is the process of labeling an
identity by producing, distributing, and reproducing discourse. The discourse that is
produced, distributed, and reproduced is a positive and negative stereotype because
stereotypes can be in the form of negative and positive (Go, FP 2013). Stereotypes
can be carried out by actors or institutions that have power, knowledge, and capital
(social capital, cultural capital, economic capital, symbolic capital) in a field where
the accumulation forms a social practice. The production, distribution, and
reproduction of discourse carried out by the dominant class with all the resources
they have. The discourse of each level is interconnected in social practice
simultaneously.

Symbolic violence occurs in students and lecturers. It is based on the results of

observations, documentation, and interviews of researchers at several universities in
South Sulawesi, Indonesia, in 2018. The author sees various social phenomena that
indicate the embryo of symbolic violence in the context of the discourse of positive and
negative stereotypes, namely (1) there is status stratification where the lecturer has high-
level status, and students have low-level status, (2) there is a positive stereotype for
lecturers and a negative one for students, (3) the existence of class domination, where the
lecturers are in the dominant class, and the students are in the dominated class, (4) the
symbolic violence of coercion, the ideology, and habitus of lecturers towards students,

250
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

and (5) the existence of the discourse in which the lecturer is viewed as the smart
generation and the student is as the critical generation.

The social stratification in the education system that divides the position of lecturers and
students is the factor in the formation of social classes, which places lecturers as the
dominant class and students as the lower class. The existence of different classes causes
different habitus between lecturers and students, giving rise to different stereotype
labeling. Lecturers have more social capital, cultural capital, economic capital, and
symbolic capital than students, which force students to follow the lecturer's habitus
(symbolic violence). Through stereotype labeling, lecturers and students each produce,
distribute, and reproduce discourse with disparities in social capital, cultural capital,
economic capital, and symbolic capital between lecturers and students. Lecturers are
viewed as the "smart generation" icon, and students are considered as the "critical
generation" icon.

Many mechanisms or methods are used by upper-class groups to enforce their habitus,
one of which is through the creation of positive and negative stereotypes. The mechanism
of the coercion of the dominant class habitus against the class that is dominated is
accepted unconsciously by the dominated class. In other words, students, as the lower
class, are forced to follow the dominant class (lecturer). Symbolic violence like that
happens at Muhammadiyah University Makassar.

Several theories serve as analytical tools to analyze symbolic violence in the context of
the discourse of the stereotype, such as (1) Pierre Bourdieu's theory of habitus x social
capital + domain = social practice (Bourdieu, 1990) and (2) Jhon Friedman's theory about
social learning. Social learning is a typical form of learning that is unspoken and informal
(Polanyi, 1966). Social learning consists of three mechanisms of empowerment, namely
(a) social practice of time, strategy, theory, and values, (b) agents of change that learn
from each other, and (c) single or double loop learning (Friedmann, J. 1973 ). Other
theories used are (3) Michel Foucault's theory of power-knowledge relations in
knowledge networks, discourse regulation, compliant social bodies and discontinuities
(Foucault, 1972; 1977; 1978; 1980), to understand the discourse and the need to
understand power networks in social relations, Foucault (2003a), and power relations
(Mills, 2003).

Practically, relevant researches on the theme of symbolic violence, both in national and
international contexts, have one form, which is the violence carried out only at the school
level. The studies include researches by (1) Powell, B., Smith, GD, & D'Amore, A.
(2017) concerning symbolic violence through favorite music that is listened to students in
learning, (2) Nairz-Wirth, E., Feldmann, K., & Spiegl, J. (2017), regarding symbolic
violence against students from the working class to achieve higher education, (3)
Quinones, JA (2017), about symbolic violence against students committed by fellow
students, (4) Reynolds, C. (2017), regarding symbolic violence towards students in
learning, and by (5) Mangera, E., & Simega, B (2017), regarding violence against
students through teaching. The various publications show the study of symbolic violence
around the school, which is ontologically limited to relations problems in the school
arena. The research that will be carried out is at the university education level that is
conducted through the analysis of symbolic violence, contextual discourse, and the
stereotype of lecturers and students. The symbolic violence is carried out by lecturers
through the production, distribution, and reproduction of discourse in the form of framed
stereotypes. The research produces findings that are "original."

Some significant contributions of the paper include (1) contribution to the focus of
research, namely symbolic violence against students in the lecture room and (2)
contribution to theory, namely (a) the vacuum of Bourdieu's theory of seeing positive
symbolic violence. Symbolic violence can be positive if the actor uses it as motivation to

251
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

fight the forming of the new habitus, and ultimately towards more positive change, by
optimizing the capital owned. (b) The vacuum of Michel Foucault's theory in seeing
dialectics of discourse is not just the context of the discourse. Discourse dialectics can
occur if every actor who produces, distributes, and reproduces the discourse
(thesis/orthodoxy), gets the challenge (antithesis/heterodoxy) (Bourdieu, 1977), and
forms a new discourse that is called a mix-doxy. The final contribution is (3) the
contribution of sociology's body of knowledge to a more comprehensive understanding of
symbolic violence, which is not only seen from the micro-level (lecturer) but also from
the macro-level (university or policy).

The study explains the symbolic violence occurs to the negatively labeled students, with
participation and empowerment that can lead to change to become more empowered. The
basis of the writing is (1) social background, which is a change in society that is more
fanatical towards lecturers and discriminatory against students, (2) intellectual
background, namely the construction of a movement towards change in class equality
between students and lecturers in the class, which is both learning through the mission of
change and empowerment and (3) research background, namely (a) the vacuum of
Bourdieu's theory in seeing positive symbolic violence. Another research background is
(b) the vacuum of Michel Foucault's theory in seeing the dialectics of discourse, not just
the context of discourse. Discourse dialectics can occur if every actor who produces,
distributes, and reproduces the discourse (thesis/orthodoxy) gets the discourse challenge
(antithesis/ heterodoxy) (Bourdieu, 1977), and forms a new discourse that is called the
mix-doxy.

RESEARCH METHODS
The study uses a qualitative research approach that is a case study of sociology education
students at the University of Muhammadiyah Makassar. The research sampling technique
is done by purposive sampling by directly selecting research informants based on the
criteria of the informants who are expected to answer or providing information about
what the researchers need. The focus of the research is symbolic violence, discourse
expectations, framed stereotype, and empowerment. The research instrument is the
researcher himself as the main instrument who uses tools in the form of interview
guidelines, observation guidelines, and recording devices. Data collection techniques are
done by using interviews, observation, and documentation. Data analysis is done through
several stages, which include data collection, data reduction, data categorization, data
display, and concluding. The data validity technique used is the triangulation techniques,
which are time triangulation, and data source triangulation.

DISCUSSION
Symbolic violence towards students in the lecture system

Students and lecturers are entities in a tertiary education system. Both elements cannot be
separated from one another. However, students always get symbolic domination and
violence from lecturers. Kirkby, J., Kirkby, J., Moss, J., Moss, J., Godinho, S., &
Godinho, S. (2017) state that domination tends to produce cultural reproduction. The
practice of domination and subordination can occur in the academic field (Bourdieu and
Wacquant, 1992) and pedagogic actions (Watkins, M. 2017). According to Kovacs, J.
(2017), the mechanism of domination can be applied to academics, such as the one in the
lecture hall. The dominance of lecturers in the lecture room through the mastery of
economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1984). It is because lecturers
have more accumulated financial wealth compared to students. The mastery of social
capital because lecturers have a vertical network with the structure of study programs,
faculties, and universities. The mastery of cultural capital is because lecturers have
accumulated knowledge from the level of education that has been obtained, which affects
the way of speaking, appearance, association, and the lecturer's self-conduct. The mastery
of symbolic capital is because lecturers have higher prestige compared to the students.

252
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

The different level raises the status and social stratification of lecturers. Symbolic power
is an investment to dominate (Bourdieu, 1992). Actors in dominant positions tend to
maintain their place, and dominated actors tend to look for strategies to improve their
position (Bourdieu, 1993). The actor's position is determined by the amount and relative
weight of capital (Bourdieu in Ritzer and Goodman, 2007). Capital accumulation as a
determinant of class domination, in the arena of Bourdieu's struggle (1984) and the
battlefield of habitus (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992), encourages a strong sense of
entitlement to privileges (Xu, C. L. 2017) between lecturers and students. Capital
contributes to symbolic violence (Huot, S. 2017). The domination in the classroom gives
the power to the lecturer to commit symbolic violence to students. Various forms of
symbolic violence committed by lecturers to students in classrooms are (1) symbolic
violence in lecture contracts. The lecture contract is essentially an agreement of rules that
must benefit lecturers and students. In reality, the lecture contract only serves lecturers
because hidden, symbolic violence exists in the form of coercion of lecturer habitus, i.e.,
lecture contracts, is more focused on lecturers, not on students. The rules to attend the
lecture on time, attendance, and neat clothing are only for students but do not apply to
lecturers. (2) Symbolic violence in the lecture schedule occurs if the schedule determined
by the head of the study program, faculty, and the university is changed by lecturers
following the rules and lecturers' habitus. Changes in lecture days, lecture hours, and
lecture rooms based on the days, hours, and rooms desired by lecturers must be accepted
by students even though they are different from students' habitus. (3) Symbolic violence
in lecture material occurs when lecturers deliver lecture material that is not based on
semester learning plans (RPS) that have been mutually agreed upon between lecturers
and the head of the study program. Lecturers only give lecture material following the
wishes, mastery of the material, and lecturers' habitus without regard to the range of
learning in the semester learning plan (RPS). Lecturers in the class only tell life
experiences, do not master lecture material, convey information that is irrelevant with
lecture material, and force students to master particular material to be studied. (4)
Symbolic violence in lecturers' learning methods occurs when lecturers provide lecture
material using learning methods that are considered reasonable and are mastered by
lecturers, without regard to student characteristics and lecture material that may require
variations in lecture methods, which are appropriate to student characteristics and lecture
material. Lecturers teach students only using conventional methods that are understood
by lecturers, such as the lecture method, which is only part of the teacher-centered
learning approach, not student-centered learning. (5) Symbolic violence in observation
activities occurs when lecturers force students to take part in observing activities that are
considered lecturers to be part of the lecture system even though it is not relevant
between observational activities and planned semester learning (RPS), between
observation locations and taught subjects, and between the quality of observation
activities with the costs incurred by students.

Figure 1.1: Symbolic violence and capital accumulation in social practices of lectures

Symbolic violence to students is not only the one that leads to negative things but also
leads to positive things. Students have an awareness of the dominance of lecturers in

253
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

lectures. Student awareness is transmitted to other students who have the same condition.
The accumulation of class awareness from various students makes anti-domination
movements, in the form of the rejection of multiple forms of symbolic violence
committed by lecturers. The rejection is voiced directly to lecturers through social media.
Student resistance leads to responses from various lecturers, students, and leaders of the
study programs. They do not agree with all forms of symbolic domination and violence,
which finally ends the symbolic power. It is what is called positive symbolic violence.

The mechanism of symbolic violence in the contestation of discourse on the

stereotypical frame made by lecturers to students in the lecture system

Various forms of symbolic violence that are received by students raise class awareness of
students to resist the dominance of lecturers in the lecture system. It has implications for
the relationship between students and lecturers in fighting over the supremacy and power
struggle, according to Quinones, J. A. (2017). Students who resist the domination and
symbolic violence committed by lecturers do the production, distribution, and
reproduction of knowledge in the form of the discourse. Foucault, in Jorgensen and
Phillips (2002), asserts that the lesson creates "truth effects." The image is framed in a
positive or negative stereotype between lecturer and student in the social practice.
Expectations of the discourse will result in zero-sum games, namely canceling one
another out (Salman, 2012).

There is no knowledge without power, nor can there be power without knowledge
(Foucault, 1972; 1977; 1978, 1980). Foucault, in Nurlaelah, S. (2017), states that power
works in the process of power formation. Power itself spreads everywhere (power is
omnipresent) (Foucault, 1980); it does not belong to the state (Foucault, 1977). Power
flows by itself throughout society in knowledge networks (Neal, 2009). Power focuses on
how to regulate human life at the level of the mass population (Rabinow, 1984; Foucault,
2008; Neal, 2009), so to study discourse must pay attention to aspects of language use
(Foucault, 1972).

The discourse that is produced, distributed, and reproduced again by students is that
students must be critical as heterodoxy (antithesis) discourse, which is a resistance to the
Doxa discourse, namely "lecturers who have power." It is then strengthened by the
orthodoxy discourse (thesis), which is "a lecturer is intelligent people." A critical student
does not want to bow to the dominance of lecturers in lectures. On the other hand,
lecturers also conduct the production, distribution, and reproduction of the image, which
states that lecturers must be intelligent, and do not allow students to explain anything to
lecturers. The fight between orthodoxy and heterodoxy discourse between students and
lecturers raises a new discourse as a synthesis of orthodoxy with heterodoxy, namely a
mix-doxy. It is a discourse, which is formed by lecturers, leaders, and students, which
states that lecturers and students have the same position and need each other.

Although students have different habitus and different mastery of capital from the
lecturers, students continue to fight the discourse in the realm of classrooms, as an arena
of struggle for domination. The discourse battle between lecturers and students continues
as a dynamic battle in the education system at the tertiary level. All of that is done to
fight over the dominance in social practices. The determinant of the perpetrators of
symbolic violence is determined by the dominance that originates from the accumulation
of habitus multiplied by capital, which is added to the realm (field) as a social practice,
such as the one founded by Pierre Bourdieu. Symbolic violence patterns, power relations,
and contextual discourse patterns in the framed stereotype can be seen in the following
figure:

254
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

Figure 1.2: Symbolic violence patterns, power relations, symbolic violence patterns, and
contextual discourse patterns

Empowerment design for students in higher education so that they do not get symbolic
violence from lecturers

With the presence of symbolic violence against students, a form of empowerment is

needed for victims of symbolic violence to have the power to continue the dynamics of
lectures dominated by lecturers' habitus. The design of the empowerment is the design of
social learning empowerment that requires time, strategy, values, theory, and agents of
change that are mutually learning and lead to single or double-loop learning, as suggested
by Jhon Freidman. The empowerment of students requires a very long time to give
students an understanding of the various forms of domination, symbolic violence, and
capital accumulation needed in pursuing higher education. The empowerment strategy
used is a bottom-up strategy that is involving students in empowerment, namely through
students' participation in providing an understanding of symbolic violence. The value that
becomes a reference in student empowerment is the value of equality between lecturers
and students, which seeks the way to create change (Wisarja, IK, & Sudarsana, IK
(2017). Indonesian education requires transformative education (Tilaar, 2012), which
makes students as friends. The theory that is the basis of empowerment is the critical
theory that seeks the way to empower students to change classes that are dominated by
lecturers in society. The agents of change are students and lecturers who learn from one
another without dominance. The final expectation obtained from empowerment is done
through the existence of single or double-loop learning. Students should have the power
and capital accumulation, or changes in the education system without symbolic violence.

CONCLUSION
The fundamental factor of symbolic violence towards students is the dominance of the
habitus and the mastery of the accumulation of social capital, cultural capital, economic
capital, and symbolic capital of lecturers. Lecturers commit symbolic violence through
lecture contracts, class schedules, lecture material, lecture methods, and assessment of
student learning outcomes. The mechanism of symbolic violence between lecturers and
students is through the production, distribution, and reproduction of the discourse, by
giving positive stereotype to lecturers, and a negative one to students. The design of
empowerment is done through social learning that takes a long time, by using bottom-up
strategy, critical theory, and the value of class equality between students and lecturers, to
lead changes in students (single learning) and on the lecture system (double-loop
learning).

Reference

Abbas Tashakkori. (2010). Handbook Of Mixed Methods In Social & Behavioral

Amini, Y. S. J. (2008). Bullying: overcoming violence in school and the environment
around children. Grasindo.

255
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

Black, M. J. & Hawks, H.J., (2009). Medical surgical nursing: clinical management for
continuity of care, 8th ed. Philadephia: W.B. Saunders Company
Blumer, Herbert. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Macdonell, D. (1986). Theories of discourse: An introduction (pp. 2-3). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Bourdieu dan Wacquant, (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Fieree. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature
Colombia University Press. Arena of Cultural Production a Study of Buddhist
Sociology. Bantul: Discourse Creation.
Bourdieu, Fieree. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Fieree. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Fierre. (1990) An Introduction to The Work of Pierre Bourdieu: The Practice
Theory (The Macmilan Press ltd: London) Habitus x Modal + Domain =
Practice, the most comprehensive introduction to Pierre Boudieu's Thoughts.
Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.
Eriyanto. (2001). Discourse analysis: Introduction to Media Text Analysis. Yogyakarta:
PT LKiS Pelangi Aksara.
Fashri, Fausi, (2014) Disclosure of Symbolic Power: Reflective Appropriation of
Bourdieu's Thoughts. Yogyakarta: Juxtapose.
Takwin, B. (2003). The Roots of Ideology: Introduction to the Study of Ideological
Concepts from Plato to Bourdieu. Jalasutra.
Wattimena, R. A. (2012). Anti-Corruption Philosophy. Yogyakarta: Canisius.
Fernandes, I. (2017). Study of Humanitarian Crimes Against Rohingya Ethnic Based on
International Law. Journal of Das Sollen's Law, 2 (1).
Foucault, Michel. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tarvistock.
Foucault, Michel. (1973). The Birth of the Clinic. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, Michel. (1977). Discipline and Punish, The Birth of the Prison. New York:
Random House..
Foucault, Michel. (1978). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writing
1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, Michel. 2003a. Society Must Defended: Lectures at the College de Frence 1975 –
1976. New York: Picador.
Foucault, Michel. 2003b. Criticism of Language Discourse. Yogyakarta: IRCiSoD.
Friedmann, J. (1973). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action.
Princeton University Press.
Go, F. P. (2013). Representation of Female Stereotypes in Brave Films. Journal of e-
Communication, 1 (2).
Hasfi, N. (2011). Symbolic Violence Against Javanese In This Beautiful Live Tv
Program On Trans Tv. In FORUM: Social Science Development Magazine
(Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 45-51). Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Undip.
Huda, N. (2008). Child abuse and chronic social problems. Pena Justisia Journal of
Communication Media and Legal Studies, 7 (14).
Huot, S. (2017). ‘Doing’capital: examining the relationship between immigrants’
occupational engagement and symbolic capital. Migration Studies, 5(1), 29-48.
Indonesia. Ministry of Women's Empowerment and Child Protection of the Republic of
Indonesia. (2011). Gender injustice. Retrieved May, 28, 2019, from
http://menegpp.go.id/
Jannah, H. F. (2002). Violence against wives. LKIS Pelangi Aksara.
Jenkins, Richard. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.
Jorgensen, Marianne W. dan Phillips, Louise J. (2002). Discourse Analysis, as Theory
and Method. London: Sage Publications.

256
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

Khanal, P. (2017). Falling prey to the dominant culture? Demystifying symbolic violence
against ethnic minority students in Nepal. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1-11.
Kirkby, J., Kirkby, J., Moss, J., Moss, J., Godinho, S., &Godinho, S. (2017). The devil is
in the detail: Bourdieu and teachers’ early career learning. International Journal
of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(1), 19-33.
Kovacs, J. (2017). Honorary authorship and symbolic violence. Medicine, Health Care
and Philosophy, 20(1), 51-59.
Loyal, S. (2017). An Assessment of Bourdieu’s Theory of the State. In Bourdieu's Theory
of the State (pp. 109-144). Palgrave Macmillan US.
Mangera, E., & Simega, B. (2017). Euphemization As A Form Of Symbolic Violence In
Learning At Makale Tana Toraja Christian Vocational School. Perspective:
Journal of Human Resource Development, 2 (2), 208-217.
Martono, Nanang. (2012). Symbolic Violence in Schools; An Ideology of the Sociology
of Education Pierre Bourdieu. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Mills, Sara. 1997. Discourse. London: Routledge.
Mills, Sara. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Routledge.
Mufid, M. (2012). Communication ethics and philosophy. Prenada Media.
Nairz-Wirth, E., Feldmann, K., &Spiegl, J. (2017). Habitus conflicts and experiences of
symbolic violence as obstacles for non-traditional students. European
Educational Research Journal, 16(1), 12-29.
Natalia, A. M. (2015). Representation of Symbolic Violence in Comic Films 8. Journal of
e-Communication, 3 (2).
Neal, Andrew W. (2009). “Michel Foucault”, in Jenny Edkins and Nick Vaughan-
Williams (Eds.) Critical Theorists and International Relations. London:
Routledge.
Nurlaelah, S. (2017). Typology, Interconnection and Actor Contestation in the
management of Bali Cattle sustainable community farms.
Polanyi, M. (1966). “The tacit dimension”. New York: Anchor Day.
Powell, B., Smith, G. D., &D’Amore, A. (2017). Challenging symbolic violence and
hegemony in music education through contemporary pedagogical approaches.
Education 3-13, 45(6), 734-743.
Quinones, J. A. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu and his concept of Symbolic Violence: what´ s
happening into Colombian Classrooms? Revista Interamericana de Educación,
Pedagogía y EstudiosCulturales, 10(1), 55-67.
Rabinow, Paul. (1984). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books.
Reynolds, C. (2017). Suffering and symbolic violence in online social learning networks.
Ritzer, George & Goodman, Douglas J. (2004). Sociology Modern Theory. Jakarta:
Kencana.
Salman, Darmawan. (2012). Village Sociology, Quiet Revolution and Complexity
Dances. Makassar: Ininnawa Press.
Subhan, Z. (2004). Violence against women. PT LKiS Pelangi Aksara.
Thontowi, J. (2013). The Myanmar Government's Treatment of Rohingya Muslim
Minorities Perspectives on History and International Law. Pandecta: Research
Law Journal, 8 (1).
Wallace, D. (2017). Reading ‘Race’in Bourdieu? Examining black cultural capital among
black Caribbean youth in South London. Sociology, 51(5), 907-923.
Watkins, M. (2017). Little room for capacitation: rethinking Bourdieu on pedagogy as
symbolic violence. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1-14.
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2009). The habitual consumer. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 19(4), 579-592.
Xu, C. L. (2017). Mainland Chinese students at an elite Hong Kong university: habitus–
field disjuncture in a transborder context. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 38(5), 610-624.
Yumitro, G. (2017). The International Response to the Rohingya Humanitarian Tragedy.
Journal of Social Politics, 3 (2), 81-100.

257
SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE TOWARDS STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT PJAEE, 17 (2) (2020)

Sutrisminah, E. (2019). Impact of Violence on Wives in the Household Against

Reproductive Health. Sultan Agung Scientific Magazine, 50 (127), 23-34.
Ada, K., & Abdurrofiq, A. (2019). Rape of Rohingya Muslim women in Myanmar
(comparative study of international law and Islamic law) (Bachelor's thesis,
Faculty of Sharia and Law of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta).

258