Padang Kenangan

Jika ada satu hal yang Binar rindukan dari masa kecilnya, itu adalah bukit di belakang rumahnya.

Di sana ada padang rumput yang membentang, bagai karpet hijau yang ditenun alam. Dulu, ia berharap bisa menemukan puing-puing piring terbang seperti Nobita dan Doraemon, atau menyanyi di puncak seperti Julie Andrews dalam The Sounds of Music. Seandainya dia mampu menaklukkan ketakutannya akan kegelapan, ia ingin bisa berbaring di atas rumput, menikmati kemilau langit malam.

Jika ada satu hal yang Binar benci dari masa lalunya, itu adalah ayahnya yang mengubah bukit di belakang rumahnya menjadi lapangan golf, demi pembangunan yang mencuri kesenangan jiwa kanak-kanaknya.

Dari Jendela

“Anda pasti suka rumah ini. Jendelanya banyak dan besar, sinar matahari leluasa masuk setiap hari.”

Perempuan itu menatap kekasihnya. Meski bertukar senyum, mereka tidak berbagi antusiasme yang sama. “Saya ambil ini!”

“Permisi sebentar,” kata kekasihnya, menggandeng perempuan itu ke sudut ruangan. “Kamu yakin?”

“Positif,” jawabnya. “Kenapa?”

“Aku merasa ada yang aneh,” lelaki itu menunjukkan lengannya. Bulu kuduknya berdiri tegak.

“Kamu hanya kedinginan.” Ia mengecup hangat kekasihnya, mengabaikan kata-katanya untuk tidak melanjutkan transaksi.

Bulan-bulan pertama, perempuan itu gemar berlama-lama duduk di depan jendela, memandang ke arah taman belakang dari lantai dua.

Ia berhenti melakukannya sejak sosok perempuan berambut panjang balas menatapnya.

Cerita Misteri

“Kamu suka Sherlock Holmes, ya?”

Kurasa jantungku berhenti berdetak. Bagaimana bisa pujaanku tiba-tiba menyapa, tepat saat aku sedang memikirkannya?

“Kok tahu?”

“Tuh, bukunya lagi kamu pegang…”

Selama ini, aku hanya mengaguminya dari kejauhan. Sebagai rekanku di tempat kerja, kami lebih banyak bertukar sapa basa-basi. Sekarang, aku malah berbincang seru dengannya, tentang kegemaran kami akan cerita misteri, di kedai kopi favoritku. Kami sedang membicarakan nikmatnya aroma kertas buku baru, saat sesosok rupawan datang menghampiri kami.

“Maaf ya, tadi ada sale novel Agatha Christie di bawah…”

Mereka bertukar kecupan, sebelum pamit minta diri.

Diam-diam, aku iri melihat mereka begitu cantik dan serasi.

Baju Lebaran Putri

“Bu, Lebaran sebentar lagi. Aku ingin baju baru,”

“Sabar ya, sekarang uangnya belum ada. Lebih baik Putri bantu ibu mencuci saja.”

Ada untungnya juga para asisten rumah tangga sudah mudik. Para penghuni perumahan elit di seberang gang jadi memasrahkan pakaian kotor mereka padaku. Bayarannya lumayan, meski tak cukup untuk belanja pakaian.

“Bu, lihat!”

Tiba-tiba, Putri kecilku sudah berpakaian bagai putri sungguhan. Dalam balutan gaun mewah warna merah muda, ia tampak sungguh menawan, meskipun ada noda berceceran di dada. Pasti bekas makanan mahal. Sekejap aku malu akan ketidakmampuanku.

“Copot baju itu, sayang,” pintaku seketika. “Jangan mengakui sesuatu yang sebenarnya bukan milikmu.”

Tak Berbayar

Pagi ini, kutemukan keramaian yang tidak biasa.

Dalam kerumunan penuh papan unjuk rasa, kuhampiri seorang lelaki muda. Sepertinya sebaya, jika tidak satu-dua tahun lebih tua. Pernyataan dalam genggamannya membuat nalarku bertanya-tanya.

“’Free hugs’ ini maksudnya apa?”

“Terkadang, seseorang hanya perlu mendapat pelukan tanpa pamrih, tak jadi soal siapa yang memberi,” dengan penuh semangat ia menjelaskan maksudnya. Ia kemudian membicarakan tentang reaksi kimia tubuh saat menerima pelukan, dan bagaimana hal ini berkembang menjadi kampanye yang mendunia.

Aku seolah diingatkan untuk tidak patah hati berlama-lama. Ketika kami bertukar peluk, perasaan hangat pun menjalar seketika.

Ah, hal-hal terbaik di dunia memang tersedia cuma-cuma.

Bukan Sepasang Sayap

Kalau sudah jengah begini, ingin rasanya punya sepasang sayap dan terbang jauh, meninggalkan ibukota yang memenjarakan dengan sederet kewajiban atas nama tanggung jawab orang dewasa.

Tapi, kalaupun sayap dijual, kurasa aku takkan sanggup membeli. Sementara itu, mereka yang mampu akan mengenakannya dengan berbangga hati, karena mereka jadi bagaikan bidadari.

Ah, tapi Tuhan memang selalu penuh kejutan. Tiba-tiba kau datang, mengetuk pintu sangkarku yang sempit dan tak berjendela, lengkap dengan buah tangan berlogo rumah makan ternama.

Guratan senyum di wajahmu seolah mengingatkanku, bahwa masih ada banyak hal di dunia yang bisa membuat hati bahagia.

Sepiring sayap untuk makan malam berdua, misalnya.

Terlalu Sibuk

Kau sedang terlarut dalam fase bulan madu. Seolah-olah dunia hanya milik berdua: kau, dan pekerjaanmu.

Sejak awal pekan, pagi hingga petang, perhatianmu terpaku pada layar monitor, membuat tatapanmu tak lagi jauh ke depan seperti dulu. Kau tak bergerak dari kursimu, tapi sebenarnya kau sedang main kejar-kejaran dengan tenggat waktu.

Mungkin ada saatnya kau beranjak, tapi seringkali alasannya adalah janji temu. Kau harus memburu artis ini, atau pejabat itu. Ini urusan serius, begitu katamu, karena aku harus memastikan bahwa semua orang dikutip dengan benar, dan khalayak mendapatkan hanya hal yang benar, selalu.

Tapi, sudah waktunya kau bereskan kamarmu.

Salam rindu,

Ibu.

hello, (new) beginning.

I had my first day of work today. I am now a magazine reporter once more.

I do not know if this is one of the benefits of wanting to achieve too many things, that some people sometimes glorify as "dreams". However, I do know that when an old chapter ends, a new chapter begins; and today is the first the day of living one of my dreams.

I am re-watching Suits for the millionth time while writing this, and I promptly hit the pause button when I heard someone saying, "You never forget your first." Oh, apparently Mike Ross just had his first trial (watch episode 4 for the full scoop). Interesting coincidence.

There is not much details to share on how today was like. I do not know what kind of first impression I have made, and to be honest, I do not feel like pondering about it and ended up over-analysing things like I always do. So far, though, I can tell that this living-the-dream thing is very promising, and I am ready to take up the challenge and embrace the fruitful experience.

I remember one of my friends said to me some time ago that she "won't be in this (read: media) business forever." True to her words, she have left her workplace she had back then and moved to an entirely different industry. Strange as it may sound, I am now in the very realm that she once had as a stepping stone, believing that I am in for the long haul (which might be interrupted by one or two years of studying abroad - hey, you'll never know :D).

Before this seems too much like a teenage girl's diary entry, I am going to stop here with a self-reminder: things may not be perfect, but they can get better.

Good night.

On Bravery (and Being Right)

There is an old Indonesian proverb that reminds people to "be brave because (you are) right, (and) be afraid because (you are) wrong."

I believe that this notion is not to be taken for granted. Without a thorough understanding, declaring something as "right" or "wrong" is simply a matter of providing an acceptable justification or getting the majority share.

Let’s say that we are, or have to be, brave because we are right.

However, what makes us "right"?

Does one become "right" simply because they are "not wrong"?

If one must, or at least can, be "brave" because they are "right", what should they be "brave" enough to do, and to what extent?

Also, what about one who believes that they are "right", then later encountered another who fervently thinks that what is "right" is something else on the contrary?

Before I go on, I would like to highlight that this piece is not about to discuss what is right and/or wrong, but how bravery has got to do with them. Okay, proceed.

On the other part of the sentence, being "afraid" is associated with what is "wrong". This implies that one has to be "afraid" to do "wrong", or be "afraid" to get caught for doing something "wrong". Yet, as human beings, we make mistakes every now and then and therefore prone to wrongdoings. Why on earth should we be afraid of something so naturally humane?

Apparently, there is a scientific explanation behind this.

"The body makes a chemical choice about how best to protect itself – in this case from the shame and loss of power associated with being wrong," said Judith E. Glaser in her article titled Your Brain Is Hooked on being Right. She furthermore explained that "When you argue and win, your brain floods with different hormones: adrenaline and dopamine, which makes you feel good, dominant, even invincible."

According to Glaser, the said chemical choice leads to the inability to regulate the body’s emotion or handle the gaps between expectations and reality. Humans will then default to one of four responses: to fight, flight, freeze, or appease. "All are harmful because they prevent the honest and productive sharing of information and opinion," she noted.

After reading Glaser’s elaboration, it came as no surprise to me that bravery is associated with being right, and fear with wrongdoings, hence the proverb.

But, in my opinion, this is where it becomes rather problematic: the proverb seems to encourage one to be "brave" only when they are "right", but not when they are "wrong".

Being "brave" when one believes themselves to be "right" is fairly easy, for it feels good and all. For example, telling a smoker to stop smoking in a non-smoking area at a public place might be hardly challenging. One would believe that they are doing the "right" thing; therefore they are "brave" enough to confront the said smoker.

However, it is a different case when one was confronted for being late for an important meeting by their boss. They might feel the need to make up an excuse ("The traffic’s unusually bad this morning", "I had a flat tire on the way", etc.), because they are "afraid" that admitting their waking up late would not be beneficial to their overall performance at work. They might get away by doing so once or twice, but when somebody else found out that their justification is fabricated, well… that is another story.

I then came to a conclusion that being "brave" is crucial regardless of one is "right" or "wrong".

One who is "afraid" when or because they do "wrong" might find it inconvenient to take the responsibility for their wrongdoing. I am not saying that one has to be "brave" by being explicitly detailed in admitting that they are "wrong"; but I believe that it is important for one to acknowledge their mistake, so they can offer apologies to those affected and do the necessary damage control. By doing so, they are willing to commit to fix the situation, and in the meantime obtain the lesson learned from their mistake.

Of course, it feels more comfortable to be "right". Glaser argues that due to the good feeling caused by adrenaline when one is winning an argument, humans are addicted to being right. However, she proposed that there is another feel-good hormone human body can produce: oxytocin. "It’s activated by human connection and it opens up the networks in our executive brain, or prefrontal cortex, further increasing our ability to trust and open ourselves to sharing," Glaser stated.

As much as connecting and bonding with others trumps conflict, Glaser concluded that anyone "can break their addiction to being right by getting hooked on oxytocin-inducing behaviour instead."

I began this piece with an Indonesian proverb, so let me end it with another, which says, "One who is brave enough to act must also is brave enough to take responsibility." It implies that, as much as one is expected to "be brave because (they are) right", it comes to little use if one is not brave enough to handle the possible consequence of them being not entirely right.

I believe that nobody is right all the time. Therefore, to be "brave" enough to embrace the possibility of being or doing "wrong" opens oneself to sharing. Only then, one is willing to listen to dissenting opinions and exchange ideas, so they can obtain some new perspective to enrich their initial understanding.

On Purity

Writing something in response to things I perceived, sometimes, is my kind of itch to scratch.

The said itch emerged this morning when I found this picture below. It was shared by a friend from a Facebook page of a parody version of Rizieq Shihab, the founder of a hardliner organisation The Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).

Tickled by how the picture being so hilariously thought-provoking, I decided to share the picture onto my Facebook timeline. Apparently, not long afterwards, a Facebook friend (should I start using this term interchangeably with the word "acquaintance", by the way?), that happens to be a former high school classmate I haven't talk to for years, could not resist the temptation to comment on my post.

Being both puzzled and appalled as I could be after reading his statement, I needed to take my time in giving appropriate reaction. I did consider possible responses, varying from writing an elaborated criticism to deleting the comment (or maybe letting it as is, you know, for I believe in Voltaire's words that says, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it").

One might be tired of hearing that "nothing in this world is either right or wrong", or "the only certain thing in this world is change". However, let me simplify this piece of thought a little bit by scooping it to the word "pure", that becomes the itch to scratch today. What is it anyway?

pure
Pronunciation: /pjʊə/

adjective

    1 not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material

• without any extraneous and unnecessary elements
• free of any contamination
• (also pure-bred) (of an animal or plant) of unmixed origin or descent; pedigree

    2 (of a sound) perfectly in tune and with a clear tone
    3 wholesome and untainted by immorality, especially that of a sexual nature

    4 (of a subject of study) dealing with abstract concepts and not practical application

Look, how the word implies such cleanliness and innocence, to regard something flawlessly genuine. Oh, and how I have overdone this adjective by explaining it through even more adjectives, arguably not making things any clearer.

Oh, yes, my point exactly.

Adjectives, my lecturer once said, should not be used when one is attempting to be as objective as they can, for they are prone to be interfered by individual values and therefore interpretations may vary. For journalists, he continued, such circumstance must be avoided at all cost, because you do not want your audience to perceive the news differently than what has actually happened. Since that day on, his words has become something I live by.

Today, being a journalist no more, I still believe in the minimum use of adjectives, should I attempt to convey my already-subjective thoughts in a fairly understandable manner (although it seems that even now I am using adjectives). Therefore, the usage of word "pure" on the comment above, as I have already highlighted, is something "delightfully debatable."

Oversimplify something as profound (at least for some people) as religion with only one word, "pure", and observe how much one has left out. The word, I believe, does not do justice to religion, which, according to George Bernard Shaw, there is only one but there are a hundred versions of it.

Honestly, how one can even measure a (version of) religion to daringly claim it as "pure"?

Should one believes in a particular version of religion to be pure, how then would they see the other versions of religion? Would they see the believers of other versions as infidels, or the non-believers as people who disrespect divine teachings, and see themselves being purified by believing in "something pure"? When they interact with people who believe in the different versions of religion, are they secretly thinking that "what you believe in is not the right thing to believe because it is, according to my belief, is not pure", and considering to make the effort to convert them to some extent?

I am not writing to discuss the importance of believing in any particular version of the religion, nor to claim which one is "pure". I just found it amazing, in the most unfavourable sense possible, that some people today still choose to believe that they are right and others are wrong, without even slightly trying to understand the perspectives on the opposite side, let alone questioning the belief that most of them have embraced blindly.

I think I also should address another thing: when one tries to "find the pure one" among a hundred versions of religion, what would they do? Would they thoroughly study all, or most, or some of them first before eventually choose one? Or would they believe in something just because their parents and ancestors did that in the first place? If it is the latter, do they dig deep to get more understanding on what they supposed to believe in because it is supposed to be pure; or just take it as is, also because it is supposed to be pure, and hence it should not be questioned?

I believe I must say this: No matter how "pure" something might be, it is all a matter of interpretations and how it is being applied, then it can retain its "purity". However, whether or not something, including religion, is still pure when it is used as a justification to violate others, this I would leave up to you.