Yogyakarta, October 14th 2026 — The Cultural and Media Studies Master’s Program (CMS), Graduate School, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), held a Discussion Series on Cultural Branding and Promotion titled “The Politics of Religious Representation” on Wednesday, October 14th 2026. The event featured Dr. Leonard Chrysostomos Epafras, representing “A Case Study of Indigenous Belief Communities.”
The discussion explored the representation of indigenous belief communities in social life, state policies, and digital spaces. It examined how meaning-making, social classification, and power relations influence the recognition, visibility, and participation of minority groups in society.
Dr. Leonard, drawing on Stuart Hall’s ideas, explained that representation does not merely describe reality but also actively shapes meaning and how society understands particular groups. Representation is closely connected to identity formation with the process of difference, which establishes boundaries between “us” and “them.” When dominant categories become the standard for judging others, groups perceived as different may face stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination.
The politics of representation is also connected to the state’s role in establishing social categories and classifications, particularly in the regulation of religion and belief in Indonesia. These classifications influence not only how identities are understood but also how communities are positioned within administrative systems and how they access public services.
One example concerns civil registration. Before the 2016 Constitutional Court ruling, adherents of indigenous beliefs faced difficulties in recording their beliefs on national identity cards. This issue demonstrates that administrative procedures are not merely technical matters but are also closely related to identity recognition and equal citizenship rights.
The discussion then turned to digital media and its influence on the representation of minority groups. Digital spaces are not entirely neutral, as media can reproduce and reinforce power structures and inequalities that already exist offline. Questions of representation included who has the opportunity to speak, whose voices receive public attention, and how particular communities are portrayed to wider audiences.
One of the challenges discussed was framing, the presentation of information from a particular perspective that highlights certain aspects while overlooking others. The practices of miscaptioning, or attaching incorrect captions to images, and fauxtography, involving misleading or manipulated photographs, can also shape public perceptions that do not accurately reflect the original context.
The representation of Indigenous communities and minority groups is further influenced by different forms of gaze, including the colonial gaze, tourist gaze, male gaze, and modernity gaze. These perspectives can portray Indigenous communities as exotic subjects, objects of spectacle, or groups considered less modern. Such representations risk overlooking the experiences, knowledge, and choices of the communities themselves.
The discussion also examined the digital divide, emphasizing that it extends beyond differences in internet access or device ownership. Digital literacy, skills, motivation, the quality of technology use, opportunities for participation, and policy support all influence whether technology can be used meaningfully.
Indigenous communities have adopted diverse approaches to digital technology. Kasepuhan Ciptagelar, for example, has developed community media with Ciga TV, while the Sunda Wiwitan community in Cigugur has undertaken the digitization of manuscripts. These initiatives demonstrate how digital technology can support the preservation and dissemination of cultural knowledge.
Conversely, some communities choose to limit or reject certain technologies to preserve their customary practices and values. Such choices do not necessarily indicate that a community is being left behind; rather, they may reflect its agency in determining the extent of its engagement with the digital world. For example, Baduy Dalam and Baduy Luar have different approaches to digital technology. This distinction highlighted the importance of recognizing the diversity of perspectives and practices within Indigenous communities.
Dr. Leonard also highlighted the vulnerability of minority groups in digital spaces. Discrimination experienced offline can extend into online harassment and digital attacks. To mitigate these risks, some communities adopt self-censoring strategies, such as limiting posts to informational content or disabling comment sections.
The discussion emphasized that inclusive digital transformation requires more than expanding infrastructure and access to technology. It also involves creating safer digital environments, protecting cultural identities, and ensuring equal opportunities for minority groups to participate and express their perspectives.
Three strategic approaches were discussed: developing digital literacy grounded in ethnopedagogy with the Triad Modes of Digital Pedagogy; strengthening the capacity of Indigenous youth with technological horizon fusion; and developing a Digital Inclusion Index (DII) that responds to local cultural diversity. These approaches seek to promote technology use that is sensitive to local contexts and respectful of community knowledge and values.
The Discussion Series on Cultural Branding and Promotion, the Cultural and Media Master’s Program at the UGM Graduate School provided a platform for critical dialogue on the relationships of representation, identity, power, and technology. The event contributed to ongoing academic discussions on the representation of minority groups and the importance of fostering a fairer, safer, and more inclusive digital environment.
Author: Khoirul Mujazanah