You are on page 1of 76

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of The Study

One always does some social relationship with another one or group in

daily life. A social relationship between one and another usually called as social

interaction. A social interaction that we do with the society makes a social process

in the society. The social interaction is about value, ideology, and the tradition

that marked by a social process (Soekanto, 2009:95). A social process is every

social interaction that happens in the period of time that makes some pattern in the

repetition of behavior relationship in the society. A social process that happens in

the social life not always running well because all of the humans in the society

have the social problem in their life. The social problem happens in the social

structure in the society.

A social problem caused by the incompatibility between the social values

and norm in the society with the individual in the society (Soekanto, 2009:105).

He describes a social problem is an incompatibility that happens between the

cultural unsure or society, where the incompatibility can affect a social life. In

short, a social process is a condition that born from the not ideal situation in the

society. The not ideal situation happen cause there is a discrepancy between hope

and reality in the society. Therefore, a social problem is a problem that appears

cause of the social interaction between one to another or group.

Some factors that make social problems can happen because of an

incompatibility between social value and social norm. A social problem also as a

1
result of the process of society development. In the society development, the

society has a desirability to change and their dissatisfaction of the society itself.

They want something new in their social life particularly for a developed country

and developing the country.

Indonesia in the process to be a developed country have some social

problem in the society development. In this case, the problem appears cause of the

imbalance of the norm and social value in the society that makes the society do

the deviant behavior. One of the problems is sexuality. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transgender (LGBT) be the most superior problem in Indonesia that should be

solved soon by the government and the society itself.

The term of LGBT itself has long been used to replace the gay

community term. Lesbian is a female-identified person who is sexually attracted

to another female. Gay refers to a homosexual person or the trait of homosexual.

Bisexual is someone who is sexually attracted to the sexes male and female.

Transgender is also known as trans, it is an all-inclusive umbrella term for people

whose gender identity does not line up with the gender they were assigned at

birth. This can include medically, socially and legally transitioning, if it desired

by an individual.

The LGBT behavior is known as the deviant behavior in Indonesia. The

reason is because their behavior is not appropriate with the norm that applicable in

Indonesia (Winurini, 2016:11). All in all, if we are talking about LGBT, the

society will think that this is the social problem because it is not appropriate with

Indonesia’s norm. The problem which should be solved soon by the society itself.

2
Most of Indonesia society see the LGBT issues as the deviant behavior and should

be solved soon. They also underestimated the LGBT. So the consequences they

get are ostracism, scorn, and alienated by the society. The society gives the

punishment for them without seeing their background why they are like that and

how the society changes them as what the society want to be.

But most of them just see this issue as the usual issues. They think LGBT

has the same right with another one in Indonesia. They think that the LGBT do

not do the damage thing for the society. The society believed the LGBT do their

work causes they want to show the real of themselves not to be the other one. The

society who cares with LGBT believes with some views or argument that says

they are part of us, we can’t reject them from our life, they do not want to be like

that, and it just they get the influences from the society. They also should get

human rights and protection by the government. Each individual should be

respected by another one. The arguments affect the society emotion and they

believed what they feel without seeing the fact and associated with the logic. The

argument that use to persuade people’s feelings to make the argument or

statement accepted usually called as the fallacy.

The fallacy is part of discourse analysis study. One type of discourse

analysis is argumentative discourse. The argumentative discourse purpose is to

persuade the reader or hearer to agree with the speaker’s or writer point of view.

Argumentative discourse is closely related to the logical fallacy because the

logical fallacy is a mistake in the argumentation. The fallacy is a violation of one

or more of the five criteria of the good argument, fallacies are categorized as the

3
criterion of a good argument that they violate (Damer, 2009:2). Fallacies are

mistakes in reasoning that typically do not seem to be a mistake. The term of

“fallacy” comes from “to deceive” or “to deceitful” in Latin and old French. In

short, a fallacy is a term that used cause of the ambiguous of language in arguing.

LGBT as the deviant behavior of the society is looking for the equality

from the society. They believe they should have the same right as the society

have. They need a confession that they are part of the society. LGBT in Indonesia

itself formed the cause of the nationalism and globalization. Homosexuality

formed by the tradition in the society. Homosexuality also formed by the

globalization, in this case, mass media as the way to make it formed.

Far from the statement that states how the LGBT was formed in the

society itself, the society still believes that they are not part of the society because

they make a social problem and their behavior is not following the norm of the

society. The norm in the society is the rule that formed by society. Sexuality in the

society norm is they should like a male when they are a male and they should like

a female when they are a female. But LGBT doesn’t have the same think. They do

and be what they want. They act like they believe. For instance, a lesbian will love

her women and a gay will love his man. Their views of what they believed are

encapsulated in their argument. Here, to analyze their argument we need the truth-

seeking principle to find whether what they argue is appropriate with the code of

intellectual conduct in Prof. Edward Damer principle or not.

According to kbbi, book contains the information of something that use

to escort or research. Book has some information that we need and what we want

4
to access. describes that research book is the book that contains science

knowledge which has been investigated systematically, methodologically and

consistent, to tell the truth (Soekanto, 2009:132). Sometimes some of the research

books contain arguments from the author that has a logical fallacy. It can happen

because if the argument break the rule of a code intellectual principle. The Gay

Archipelago book by Tom Boellstorff contains some arguments that have the

logical fallacy. The Gay Archipelago book is the first book that explores Gay life

in Indonesia, a nation with the most residents to the four largest in the world. The

book research about how gay and lesbian identity in Indonesia influenced by

nationalism and globalization. Tom Boelstorff investigated the history of

homosexuality in Indonesia, and how their identity was running in the society.

Tom in his research book tries to persuade the reader, especially to the Indonesian

reader to accept that LGBT in Indonesia is formed by the nationalism and

globalization.

Tom Boellstorff is an American writer that was born in Nebraska, a little

city in the United States. He moved to California when he was 18 years old to

entering Stanford University. He openly himself as a gay when he moved to

California. He cooperated with non-governmental organizations in the field of

HIV virus prevention in there. In 1992, when he was 23 years old he came to

Indonesia for the first time. He met and cooperate with gay people in Indonesia in

the health and human right field.

The reason why the writer chooses “An Analysis of Logical Fallacy in

Tom Boellstorff’s The Gay Archipelago Concerning Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and

5
Transgender (LGBT) and its argument” is there are so many arguments that

convey from LGBT people’s mind is not appropriate with the logical fallacy

principle and the relevance principle in the code of intellectual conduct. Here

some examples of Tom Boellstorff argument in The Gay Archipelago book:

“I was openly gay throughout my fieldwork; this certainly aided the process of

becoming familiar with those I was studying” (Boellstorff, 2005:22)

To analyze the argument above, whether it contains the logical fallacy or not, we

should reconstruct the argument above into standard form.

I (Tom) was openly gay throughout my fieldwork (Tom openly as gay people

themselves, it helps the process to become familiar with the gay society)

[premise]

This certainly aided the process of becoming familiar with those I was studying

[premise]

(become part of something in a group will help us to understand our research or

study, in this case, Tom is being a gay to help him in his study) [implicit premise]

Therefore, Tom’s view to be gay is the right choice to help him better understand

in his study and he proud of it. [conclusion]

According to Tom’s view above his position as a gay help him better to

understanding his research object. In the other hand, the best way to analyze them

becomes a part of them. Tom is a gay and he believes that telling them about his

position as a gay will persuade them and influence their feeling to tell everything

that Tom need in his research. All in all, Tom’s argument above is included in the

logical fallacy named appeal to emotion. In the appeal to emotion the one who

6
states an argument use the emotion of the reader or the hearer (receiver) to make it

accepted. Appeal to Emotion as the logical fallacy that contains in the argument

above trying to convince the reader that his position as a gay will help him in his

study which is it will persuade the subject that becomes the object of his study, in

this case, the gay.

Besides that the another purpose when we know the fallacious argument

concept is it can apply in our writing when we write because in argumentative

writing we need to be logic and based on the truth to make a good argument. We

need a good reasoning to make it relevance between the premise and the

conclusion that we make in the argument.

These fallacious argument concepts are, appeal to belief or appeal to

common opinion, appeal to irrelevant authority, appeal to emotion, appeal to force

or threat, appeal to tradition and appeal to self-interest and they are known as

fallacies of irrelevant appeal. Appeal to belief or usually known as appeal to

common opinion is when a lot of people believe in one claim whether the claim is

following by the evidence or not. Appeal to irrelevant authority is when the truth

of the argument is decided by the author. If the author or people is qualified in his

field states some argument it must be true. But if the author or people is not

qualified, when he states an argument it will be questionable. Whereas, Appeal to

emotion is when the people states an argument and try to manipulate the emotion

of the people to accept it. Appeal to force or threat is when an arguer tries to

persuade another with threat them with undesirable action. Appeal to tradition is

the argument assuming to be true if something is becoming a tradition that

7
happens in the society. Appeal to self-interest is when an argue try to persuade

other people with the consideration that it will give effect for the society in the

future, the relevance of the argument is no more important because the importance

of the society is the primary.

1.2 Research Question

Based on the description in the background, the writer formulated the research

question, as follows:

1. “How are Edward Damer’s logical fallacies (fallacies of irrelevance

appeal) works in Tom Boellstorff’s views in The Gay Archipelago

book?”

2. “What is the dominant Edward Damer’s logical fallacies (fallacies of

irrelevance appeal) in The Gay Archipelago book?”

1.3 Objectives of the Study

Based on the research question above, the objectives of this study are:

1. To describe Edward Damer’s logical fallacies (fallacies of irrelevance

appeal) works in Tom Boellstorff’s views in The Gay Archipelago book.

2. To describe the dominant Edward Damer’s logical fallacies (fallacies of

irrelevance appeal) in The Gay Archipelago book.

8
1.4 The Significance of the Study

There are two significances that the writer expected in this study, those are

practical and significances, as follows:

1.4.1 Theoretical Significance

From the theoretical significance, this study is expected:

1. The research is significant to provide some information about fallacious

argument concept (logical fallacy) for those who are interested in the

study of fallacious argument concept (logical fallacy).

1.4.2 Practical Significance

From the practical significances, this study is expected:

1. To encourage another study of fallacious argument concept in other

created discourses like debate, movie, speech, or even field research of

fallacious argument concept.

2. To put deep attention for all who are interesting in the argumentative

discourse study how important it is to make or state a good argument.

1.5 The Scope of the Study

In this research, the writer will use inductive and deductive standard of

an argument in analyzing the fallacious argument concept. There are six T.

Edward Damer’s logical fallacy concept in fallacies of irrelevant appeals, such as

appeal to irrelevant authority, appeal to belief or appeal to common opinion,

appeal to tradition, appeal to self- interest, and appeal to emotion, and the writer

focuses on applying all of the fallacious irrelevant appeals to this research.

9
Therefore, the writer will apply all of the fallacies of irrelevant appeal to

analyze The Gay Archipelago book by Tom Boellstorff.

1.6 Definition of Terms

To avoid misunderstanding, the following terms are defined according to its

relative meaning as used in this study.

1. An Argument is a connected series of sentences, statements, or

propositions it called “premises” that are intended to give reasons of

some kind for a sentence, statement, or proposition that called the

“conclusion”.

2. The Fallacy is a violation of a criterion of a good argument.

3. LGBT is defined as Lesbian, gay, Bisexual and Transgender.

4. KBBI stands for Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia.

10
CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Discourse Analysis

The term of discourse is derived from a Sanskrit word which means

utterance or utterances. The discourse is a series of sentences that related in each

sentence and make a meaning of it (Alwi, 2003: 42). Therefore, the discourse is

the organization of the sentences, forming and make something to state. Discourse

can also be meaningful of speech as a word that has a context and conveys an

idea. Whereas, an analysis is a process of investigating something. In Deborah

Tannen (Discourse Analysis-what speakers do in conversation) journal, she states

that discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language ‘beyond

the sentence’. In other words, discourse analysis can define as the analysis of

discourse more than sentences. In short, Discourse analysis is the analysis of

sentence in broadly more than words, clause, and phrase.

Discourse analysis has been using to other disciplines especially in the

linguistic science that focuses on analyze written, vocal, or sign language use, or

any significant semiotic event. Discourse analysis had developed in the 1970s and

concerned with the use of language in a running discourse (Abrams and Harpham,

2005:66). All in all, discourse analysis is the study of the use of language in the

text and context.

11
There is some kind of discourse analysis in terms of communicating

purpose (Hayon, 2007:52). That are narrative discourse, persuasive discourse,

descriptive discourse, expositive discourse and argumentative discourse. Narrative

discourse is the kind of discourse that contains stories. Persuasive discourse is

kind of discourse that persuades the reader to do what the writer want. Descriptive

discourse is a kind of discourse that describes an object then the reader can

imagine what the object is. Expositive discourse is trying to explain the object to

make the reader understand it. Argumentative discourse is a kind of discourse that

tries to persuade the reader that the argument which states is a truth, whether it is

the truth or not. Sometimes the arguer uses the emotion of the reader to make an

argument being accepted.

2.1.1 The Theory of Argumentative Discourse

Argumentation is an everyday and everywhere activity for most people:

from mass media to scientific forums, from coffee breaks to political debates; it is

so common to see individuals engaged in the activity of giving and asking for

reasons that arguing seems to be something particularly akin to our very way of

being. Why? Certainly, argumentation is closely connected to the specifics of

human language (Bermejo, 2011:1). Argumentation is not the new thing for us. It

is related to our daily activities and we do it every time. Argumentation is closely

related to our daily activity. Cause, every time we are speaking we sometimes

arguing also.

Argumentation can define as the presentation and elaboration of an

argument. The argument takes place not in a vacuum but in a specific context of

12
time and place and with a certain relationship to events that precede and follow

the argumentative speech or writing.

An Argumentative speech can define to put forward as a response to, or

in anticipation of, a difference of opinion, and serves a function in the regulation

of disagreement. In principle, the argumentation that is advanced is geared to

resolving a difference of opinion by providing a justification or refutation of the

statement.

Besides, an Argumentative writing usually defined as Argumentative

discourse. An argumentative or persuasive essay takes a position on an issue or

asserts a claim and then uses various rhetorical strategies to support that position

or claim (Carabelli, 2013:107). Usually, the purpose of an argumentative paper is

to persuade readers to agree with the writer’s point of view. The argumentative

discourse takes an important place to influence what the reader believe.

Indeed, many of the argumentative texts or discourse manage to avoid

such faulty reasoning, mainly because successful authors have learned how to

avoid such case (Carabelli, 2013:29). Effective writers begin generating ideas

about possible solutions during the brainstorming process, particularly if they are

arguing about a controversial topic. An argumentative paper that just tries to

convince others to believe in a set of values might not need claims of policy

(p.48). In the other words, the author of the book should pay more attention to

everything that he wants to write. Because what they write is persuasive text and

will persuade the reader to believe what they write.

13
Up to a point, argumentative discourses can be considered good or bad

depending on aspects such as their style, their persuasiveness to a particular

audience or addressee, their historical significance, their originality, their

fruitfulness or whatever we may value in argumentation (Bermejo, 2011:36). The

argumentative discourse can be said as good or bad is depend on the reader also.

2.2 General Concept of Argument

An argument is a connected series of sentences, statements, or

propositions (called “premises”) that are intended to give reasons of some kind for

a sentence, statement, or proposition (called the “conclusion”) (Amstrong,

2010:3). In brief, an argument is containing premises and conclusion. A premise

contains a statement that uses as the basic to taking the conclusion. Whether the

statements in the premise is true or not. An argument is a group of statements,

one or more of which, the premises, support or provide evidence for another,

the conclusion (Damer, 2009:13). Some premises are conclusions of previous

arguments, while others may be statements of fact, personal observations,

expert testimony, or expressions of common knowledge. So we can say the

premises that contain the statement of fact, personal observation, expert

testimony should be proved by the evidence to make the argument believe.

An argument is an attempt to influence someone else in some direction

(Meany, 2002:52). Usually, this direction is a matter of belief, adherence, or

action. Well, the argument can affect someone’s belief and emotion of something.

14
of course what they believed to influence their action in life. In brief, an

argument is an important thing because it can affect human life.

The arguments can be said to be true if valid and sound (Fearnside,

1959:112). In brief, if an argument is valid and if the premises are true, then the

conclusion must also be true. A valid argument is if and only if the premises are

true. And sound refers to a valid argument and the premises are indeed true. The

logic of the argument is sound (Seuren, 2010:298). An argument contains

premises and supporting by the sound evidence. Some arguments are about

facts. These arguments deal with facts or definitions in controversy and attempt to

get the listener to believe in certain facts. Other arguments are about values. These

arguments try to persuade the listener to adhere to particular value systems;

alternately, they may use given value systems to persuade the listener to accept

certain states of affairs as consistent with their values.

An argument is aimed at the goal of demonstrating the truth or falsity

of a particular claim by presenting evidence that may persuade others to accept

that claim (Damer, 2009:13). Here, if the claim that asserted do not support the

implicit or explicit statement so this is not an argument. It is just an opinion which

is a lack of evidence.

One of the most difficult is identifying which one the argument and the

opinion. Many people have difficulty understanding the difference between an

argument and the expression of a personal belief or opinion. They use the words

“argument’ and ‘opinion’ interchangeably (Damer, 2009:14). Sometimes when we

ask someone for an argument of his belief on an issue, he will give us his opinion

15
about the issue rather than he gives an argument. As a simple, he gives us what he

believes. We should know that in belief contain the conclusion of an argument.

The conclusion of the argument is opinion or judgment resulting from the process

when we see the evidence.

2.3 The Standard Form of An Argument

In evaluating an argument knowing the standard form of an argument is

the important aspect. Because arguments come in all shapes and forms, it will

help to have a standard way of presenting arguments (Amstrong, 2010:55). A

standard format that exhibits the logical structure of an argument is as follows:

Since (premise),

Which is a conclusion supported by (sub premise),

And (premise),

Which is a conclusion supported by (sub premise),

And (premise),

[and (implicit premise)]

And (rebuttal premise),

Therefore, (conclusion).

The standard form of an argument is one that is reconstructed from its

original source in clear, concise language that is consistent with the intention of

the arguer, with all implicit parts explicitly stated and with the premises and sub

premises orderly separated from the conclusion (Damer, 2009:18). In brief, a

standard argument is consist of premises, sub premises, implicit and rebuttal

16
premises ( if it is in a sentence), and conclusion. A premise as what the writer

explain above is a base of taking the conclusion. Subpremise is used to support

the premise in the argument. Implicit premises refers to the essential meaning of

the arguments originally. A rebuttal premises is the type of premises is used to

answer anticipated objections to the argument or to the position that is supported.

Then, a conclusion is said to follow what the premises state.

2.3.1 Deductive and Inductive Standard

There are two main standards for evaluating an argument. The deductive

standard and inductive standard (Amstrong, 2010:139). Both of the standards

should reconstruct the argument to make it appropriate to the argument principles.

A correctly formed deductive standard of an argument is one whose form is such

that the conclusion follows with logical necessity from its premises (Damer,

2009:20). So we may say if the premise is true, the followed conclusion must be

true. It also can describe the relationship between the premises and conclusion

must be valid or correctly formed. It is impossible for Deductive argument if the

premises are true and the conclusion is false. For instance:

All of the man who states they are LGBT in the USA at least thirty-five years old.

John Barry is part of LGBT community in the US.

If we reconstruct a deductive argument, it will be:

All of the man who states they are LGBT in the USA at least thirty-five years old,

(premise 1)

And John Barry states he is LGBT, ( premise 2)

17
Therefore, John Barry is thirty-five years old or older. (conclusion)

According to the argument above, Premise 1 and premise 2 are true, then the

conclusion must be true.

An inductive standard of the argument is one in which the premises are

supposed to provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion(Damer,

2009:21). So the conclusion of an Inductive argument does not follow its

premises, the conclusion is not already contained in any of the premises even if

the premises are true. We may say that the truth of the premises in the inductive

argument do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. For instance:

The law of LGBT had been accepted by the government in the United States. That

is a good news for the LGBT in the United States. Michael is a big donator in the

LGBT organization in the United States. Michael works in the law government

and has a big role in their decision.

Here if we reconstruct the inductive argument, it will be:

LGBT law had been accepted in the USA by the government, (premise)

[LGBT idea is to make them accepted by the same society in the USA] (implicit

premise)

This is a good news for LGBT in the USA, (sub premise)

Michael works in the USA development in making decision to LGBT law,

(premise)

Michael is a big donator for them, (sub premise)

So, it should be reasonable if we say Michael is a donor, supporter, and part of

LGBT itself. (conclusion)

18
From the argument above, the conclusion in the inductive argument is can be

predict based on what the premise stated.

2.3.2 Valid and Sound

An argument is valid if and only if it is not possible that all of its premises

are true and its conclusion false. Alternatively, one could say that its conclusion

must be true if its premises are all true (or, again, that at least one of its premises

must be false if its conclusion is false (Amstrong, 2010:57). In short, valid means

conclusion is following the true or false of the premises. Whether the premises is

true, the conclusion must be following it too. And if the premises are false the

conclusion must be false also.

Sound or soundness have two criterion. That are the argument must be

valid and the premises must be true. When an argument meets both of these

standards, it is said to be sound. If it fails to meet either one or the other, then it is

unsound. Thus, an argument is unsound if it is invalid, and it is also unsound if at

least one of its premises is false (Amstrong, 2010:60). All in all, sound means the

premises and conclusion determine the soundness of the argument.

2.4 Basic Principles of Argument

There are twelve code of intellectual conduct or basic principles in the

argument. But, in order to define the criteria to have a good argument, Damer

suggests there are five criteria in basic principles of argument to have a good

argument. The discussion below is the description of each criterion that proposed

by T. Edward Damer in his code of intellectual conduct principles.

19
1) The Structural Principle

One who argues for or against a position should use an argument that

meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument. Such

an argument does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the

conclusion, or that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion.

Neither does it draw any invalid deductive inferences (Damer, 2009:31). Whoever

states or argue an argument, the reason should not contain the contradictions

between one and other. For instance, some premises are not appropriate with the

conclusion.

2) The Relevance Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should set forth

only reasons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion

(Damer, 2009:32). One who states or argue an argument it should be proved by

strong evidence, empirical can be justified scientifically that support the truth of

the conclusion in the argument.

3) The Acceptability Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should provide

reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet

standard criteria of acceptability (Damer, 2009:33). Whoever propose or argue an

argument it should be followed by the acceptable reason accompanied by strong

evidence, clear language and etc.

20
4) The Sufficiency Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to

provide relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are

sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion

(Damer, 2009:36). The people who state or argue an argument, so it should be

followed by complete, sufficient and details reasons. If the reasons are not

appropriate (complete, sufficient and details) the argument will be arguing by the

other people.

5) The Rebuttal Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should include in

the argument an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the

argument that may be brought against it or against the position it supports (Damer,

2009:38). Whoever propose or argue an argument should be following by a clear

explanation that can answer every objection from the other people. On the other

words, the reason can anticipate every critic from the other people.

2.4.1 The Fallacies That Violate The Relevance Principle

As what the writer explain above that the relevance principle means that

one who argue or state an argument should give a relevance reason or evidence to

make his or her argument being accepted. This fallacy is divided into two basic

categories: (1) fallacies of irrelevant premise and (2) fallacies of irrelevant appeal

(Damer, 2009:92).

21
The fallacies of the irrelevant premise are those arguments that use

premises that have no connection to or fail to give support to their conclusion

(Damer, 2009:93). Some arguers just state the premise to justify their position that

is not the real reason supporting their conclusion. Besides, An argument that

supports a conclusion by using the number of people that accept or reject it is

using an irrelevant appeal (Damer, 2009:105). In the Taxonomic of Fallacies

defines that Irrelevant appeals attempt to sway the listener with information that,

though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

There are many different types of irrelevant appeal, many different ways

of influencing what people think without using evidence. The irrelevant appeal

tried to persuade people by giving an irrelevant argument. They persuade people

by influence their emotion, belief, authority, fear and something sensitive from the

people to make them believe the claim. Arguments that use an irrelevant appeal

try to support a conclusion by appealing to a factor or consideration that only

appears to have a bearing on the merit of the conclusion. (Damer, 2009:93).

2.4.1.1 Types of Logical Fallacies in the Fallacies of Irrelevance Appeal

There are six Fallacies in the Fallacies of Irrelevance Appeal that are

used to explain the argument that containing a fallacy. In measuring Fallacious

argument, that kind of fallacies correlates with the argumentative discourse scales

or the code of intellectual conduct principles which had to be explained in the

previous section. The explanation and the example of each fallacy will be

discussed briefly below.

22
1) Appeal to Belief

Appeal to belief also known as appeal to common opinion. It defines to

urging the acceptance of a position simply on the grounds that a large number of

people accept it or arguing the rejection of a position on the grounds that very

people accept it. Two other names sometimes given to this fallacy are bandwagon

fallacy and consensus gentium. The bandwagon notion suggests that an idea or

action must be true or good because everyone is accepting it or jumping on it as if

it were a wagon full of musicians in a circus parade. Consensus gentium means

“consent of the people.” If a majority or at least a large number of people accept a

particular claim, we are often led to believe that it is true or worthy of our belief

also. However, the truth or merit of an idea or claim is in no way affected by the

number of people who support it.

For instance:

Marijuana can’t be all wrong. According to a recent Gallup survey published in

yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, more than 60 percent of the adult American

population sees nothing wrong with it.

Here if we reconstruct the argument above:

Marijuana can’t be wrong, (premise)

Wall Street Journal’s published that more than 60 percent of the adult in America

sees nothing wrong with it, (premise)

Therefore, marijuana is not wrong because many people believe it is not wrong.

(conclusion)

23
From the argument above we can see that the benefits or dangers of smoking

marijuana cannot be ascertained by taking a poll. Polls may indicate what people

are thinking, doing, or anticipate doing, but very little regarding the merit of an

idea, claim, or action can be inferred from such surveys. Polling just indicates

what people believe and it doesn’t have a correlation with the benefits or the

danger of marijuana.

2) Appeal to Authority

The definition of Appeal to authority is attempting to support a claim by

appealing to the judgment of one who is not an authority in the field, the judgment

of an unidentified authority, or the judgment of an authority who is likely to be

biased. The example of Appeal to Authority is as follows:

I think that we should adopt this new curricular proposal. After all, it has been

unanimously endorsed by the college’s governing board. The people who are

entrusted with running the college should know what they’re talking about when it

comes to deciding the best curriculum for the school.

Here if we reconstruct the argument above:

The new curriculum proposal should be adopted, (premise)

Cause the college’s government make the curriculum, (sub premise)

[The college’s government is they are who entrusted to make the best curriculum

for the school and we should follow them] (implicit premise)

Then, the best authority to make the best curriculum for the school is from

college’s government. (conclusion)

24
From the argument above we can see that in virtually every college or university,

the governing board turns over the management of the curriculum to the faculty,

who are the experts on such matters. While members of governing boards may be

relevant authorities about fiscal or organizational matters, they are not relevant

authorities on curricular matters. To use the endorsement of the curriculum by the

board as a reason for adopting it is to appeal to an irrelevant authority, which is a

violation of the relevance criterion of a good argument.

3) Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion or usually known as manipulating of Emotion can

define as attempting to persuade others to accept a position by exploiting their

emotions instead of presenting evidence for the position. There are five types of

emotional manipulation that are so common they even have their own names: the

appeal to pity, the use of flattery, assigning guilt by association, appeal to group

loyalty and appeal to shame. They tend to get us to believe or act in a certain way

for reasons that are not relevant to the truth of the supported claim. The example

of one type of the Appeal to emotion will be illustrated as follows:

The fact that you witnessed the gang rape doesn’t matter, Gloria. When your own

brother-in-law is one of those accused, you just don’t get up on the witness stand

and spill your guts. It’s quite possible that you could help send a member of your

own family to prison for twenty years.

Here if we reconstruct the argument above:

Since Gloria be the witness of the gang rape, (premise)

And fact that his brother become part of the gang rape, (sub premise)

25
One thing that Gloria should do is be quietly and do not tell anyone, (premise)

Because be quiet will help her brother to not go to the prison, (sub premise)

Therefore, to be loyalty to her family Gloria asks by her family to be quiet and act

as usual in front of the law later. (conclusion)

We can see from the argument above that the appeal to Gloria’s feelings of loyalty

is an irrelevant appeal in this context, but the family member is trying to

manipulate Gloria’s natural feelings for her family. The family member tries to

persuade Gloria from her feeling. If Gloria fails to recognize that the appeal is

irrelevant, she could very well contribute to a miscarriage of justice, which is a

more important issue than family loyalty.

4) Appeal to Force or Threat

Appeal to force or threat is attempting to persuade others of a position by

threatening them with an undesirable state of affairs instead of presenting

evidence for one’s view. However, if an arguer tries to force another to accept a

particular belief or a course of action by threatening him or her with some

undesirable action or state of affairs, then the arguer is guilty of using an

irrelevant appeal. For instance:

Student: Professor Boltwood, why do we have to attend the guest lecture tonight,

as it is outside class time and was not listed on the syllabus?

Professor Boltwood: because that is what I require!

Here if we reconstruct the argument above:

Since the student ask Professor Boltwood why they should attend the night class,

(premise)

26
And the night class is not written in the syllabus, (sub premise)

And Professor Boltwood tell them just come to the class because it is what his

required, (premise)

Therefore, the student should follow what the professor say and require.

(conclusion)

We can see from the argument above that the student is asking why the class

members are required to attend the extra lecture, but Professor Boltwood responds

in an authoritarian fashion. He simply appeals to his power over the students to

force their compliance. His argument is fallacious, for it implicitly issues a threat

instead of defending the requirement with relevant reasons.

5) Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to tradition is attempting to persuade others of a point of view by

appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for a tradition instead of to

evidence, especially when a more important principle or issue is at stake. It is also

true that many traditions perform social functions of great importance. For

instance:

I just don’t understand why you and Dan didn’t have your baby circumcised. You

can’t just abandon a tradition like that, Amy. Boys have usually been circumcised

in our culture, even when they aren’t Jewish. When Daniel is a little older and

realizes that he is out of step with the rest of the male world, whatever reason you

may have had for not having him circumcised is not really going to matter.

Here if we reconstruct the argument above into standard form:

Since boys in our culture have traditionally been circumcised, (premise)

27
and an uncircumcised boy will sooner or later feel self-conscious about his body,

(premise)

[and we ought to follow tradition unless it conflicts with something more

important,] (implicit moral premise)

[and there is nothing more important at stake,] (implicit premise)

Therefore, parents should have their boys circumcised. (conclusion)

We can see from the argument above, the reason given for circumcising non-

Jewish boys is that it is a tradition. However, the appeal to tradition is irrelevant in

this case because there are several larger issues at stake that should take

precedence over a concern for the comfortableness of a tradition. First, the

original religious basis of circumcision is no longer a relevant consideration for

non-Jewish parents. Second, attempts to defend the practice on the grounds of

health are no longer generally supported by health professionals. The

comfortableness of tradition would therefore not appear to be strong enough to

override the physical pain and financial cost connected with the practice of

parents altering the bodies of their male children.

6) Appeal to Self-Interest

Appeal to self-interest is urging an opponent to accept or reject a

particular position by appealing solely to his or her personal circumstances or self-

interest when a more important issue is at stake. An argument that appeals to the

personal circumstances or self-interest of another when there may be more

important issues at stake is using an appeal that is not relevant to the merit of the

question at issue. For instance:

28
I really don’t see how you can oppose the administration’s bill to cut

income and capital gains taxes. After all, given your tax bracket, you’ll benefit

considerably from the cut, and if you sell any of that real estate and those stocks

you own, you’re going to realize a lot more from the sale if the capital gains tax is

lowered.

Here if we reconstruct the argument above into standard form:

Since the administration’s tax bill cuts income and capital gains taxes, (premise)

and you will benefit from the bill, (premise)

because you have a high income and potential capital gains looming, (sub

premise)

Therefore, you should support the bill. (conclusion)

We can see from the argument above, Although it may indeed be to the

advantage of the target of this argument to have lower taxes, there may be a more

important issue at stake here. Lowering income and capital gains taxes could have

the effect of curtailing other important government programs, increasing the

national debt, or creating other more serious economic problems for the country.

The potential personal benefits may be tempting, but they are not relevant to

judging the merit of public policy proposals.

2.5 LGBT

LGBT is an umbrella term covering a very heterogeneous group of

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who often feature together as a

group (Takacs, 2006:224). LGBT as an umbrella term refers to the community as

29
a whole. Lesbian, gay and bisexual refer to sexual orientation transgender refers

to an individual’s gender identity or gender expression.

Lesbian is a female-identified person who is sexually attracted to other

female-identified people. This term refers to a woman who loves another woman

whether in physical, sexual, emotional and spiritual. Gay is widely accepted term

for all same-sex attraction or sexuality. Interchangeable with a homosexual. Gay

refers to a man who is attracted to another man. Bisexual refers to someone who is

sexually attracted to the sexes male and female. Bisexual marked by the people

who attracted to the same sexes or different sexes. Bisexual also refers to the

romantic attracted, sexual attracted and sexual attracted to the man or woman.

Transgender also known as trans, it is an all-inclusive umbrella term for people

whose gender identity does not line up with the gender they assigned at birth. This

can include medically, socially and legally transitioning, if it desired by the

individual. Transgender is used in this guide to refer to individuals whose gender

identity or gender expression differs from their assigned sex at birth or any

prevailing ideas of masculinity or femininity.

LGBT in their movement has a rainbow flag to marked them. The color

of the flag consists of pink, red, orange, yellow, green, blue turquoise, blue indigo,

and purple. Each of the colors has their own meaning. Pink means sexuality, read

refers to life, orange meaning healing, green refers to nature, yellow meaning

sunlight, turquoise meaning art, indigo means harmony and purple mean spirit.

30
2.5.1 History of LGBT in The World

The deviant behavior in the society, in this case, LGBT known happens

for the first in the prophet Luth A.S era. The deviant behavior in this era mostly

known as Homosexual. Homo means same and sexual means attracted to the

sexuality. Homosexuality means attracted to the same sex. Prophet Luth A.S

people named Sodom are related to the homosexual. Narrated in Al-qur’an in sura

Hud verse 26, it states that when Luth A.S offering his daughter to the man in the

society, the man is rejected prophet Luth A.S offer. They prefer to choose in

marriage with the same sex. At the time happen God destroy their place and their

life.

The second history of Sodom people happens again in the Italy, Pompei

city. God destroy and burn Rumawi people at the time. Their behavior is doing the

same sex (male with male and female with female). The disaster happens in the

August 24th 79 AD. The Vesuvius mountain erupts in 24 hours and it burns all of

the city.

At 1869, a Germany-Hungary man named dr. K.M. Kertbenny creates a

homosexuality term. Homo derived from Greek means same, and sex refers to

sexual. This term refers to one who attracted with the same sex, a man attracted to

the man and woman attracted to the woman.

At 1940, Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey makes a research about the behavior of

man and woman sexuality in America. Kinsey collects the science data about

sexuality that completely free from the value and norm in the society.

31
At 1955, the first biggest association to woman homosexual was

established in the United States at San Fransisco named Daughters of Bilitis. It

also called the DOB. It was conceived as a social alternative to lesbian bars,

which were subject to raids and police harassment.

At 1969 in New York City riots happen. It happens when transvestite and

gay people protest raids by the police in the Stonewall Inn, Greenwich Village

area at the June 28th of the middle in the night. The demonstration is broadly

known as the most important event that makes a gay liberation movement and a

struggle to get gay and lesbian rights in the USA.

2.5.2 LGBT in Indonesia

Chronologically, LGBT movement in Indonesia begins in the 1960s. The

development in this era happen in the 80s and 90s and bow out in 20s till now. At

the past time, we may know Sentul and Kintil but know mostly known as Butchy

and Femme.

LGBT identify themselves as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.

The LGBT goal is want to demand their equality in the society. They believed that

they have the same right with the other people. They won’t discriminate by the

society. Many of arbitrary injustice that they get from the society make them go

into hiding from the society and they make a community.

The lesbian and gay community can provide support for teens and is a

source of friendship, romantic relations, role models, and social norms. In general,

it’s more important to have someone to talk to than someone to socialize with

(Thompson, 2001:59). According to Ami Wilson in the Advancing Effective

32
Communication, Cultural Competence , and Patient- and Family- Centered Care

for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender ( LGBT ) Community- A Field

Guide (2005:1) she states that the LGBT community is as diverse as the nation

and includes members of every race, ethnicity, religion, mental capacity, physical

ability/ disability, age, and socioeconomic group. One of the oldest LGBT

organization in Indonesia was Hiwad (Himpunan Wadam Djakarta or Djakarta

Wadam Association). Wadam or mostly known as the transvestite.

In 1982, there were so many Gay communities that founded in Indonesia.

Lambda Indonesia and another organization founded in the 1980s and 1990s.

Now, the primary association of LGBT in Indonesia are GAYa Nusantara, Arus

Pelangi, Ardhanary Institute, GWL INA and etc. Their activities are organized the

social meeting, increase the human awareness and make some bulletins. They also

ask the government to give them the law protection.

Indonesia national law does not forbid intersex relation and homosexual

relation. The government considers their action is not a criminal, neither they are

not breaking the rule such as children law, morality law, pornography law, and

prostitution. A homosexual relation is not a criminal action as long as just doing

by the adult, personal, not sharing to the other people, non-commercial and they

like each other. But the government considers not to give them the same equality

like the normal relation.

In the journal of Being LGBT in Asia-Indonesian Country Report states

that at first glance, transgender persons, especially transgender women, are

tolerated and are found in many social settings. What is not realized is that many

33
of these people may be “tolerated” but they have not necessarily been accepted by

their own families. Acceptance means transgender persons can take part in all

family and social life without reservations, whereas tolerance is usually expressed

grudgingly or out of necessity. Transsexual or transgender status in Indonesia is

very complicated. Cross-dressing is not accepted, illegal and public tolerance had

given to them who work in the salon or entertainment industry. Homosexuality

and cross-dressing are taboo for the society.

2.6 The Previous Studies

There are some previous studies that deal with LGBT views and another

about Logical Fallacy. Some studies about LGBT views are by Donald P Haidel-

Marker and Joslyn (2008). Beliefs about the Origins of Homosexuality and

Support for Gay Rights. Mrs. Laura A. Markowe (2002). A study of Lesbian and

Gay identity: European Perspectives. Some studies about Logical Fallacies are by

Nirvan Ghovin (2015). The Fallacy of Chinese. So Young Shim (2011). Critical

Thinking on a Logical Fallacy. Another studies deal with Logical Fallacy and

LGBT but not containing the argument of LGBT views. Rena M. Lindevaldsen

(2010). The Fallacy of Neutrality from Beginning to End: The Battle Between

Religious Liberties and Rights Based on Homosexual Conduct. Kevin Brandyon

Quinn (2012). “Queering” The American Family: Belief, Fallacy, and Myth.

To make clear, the writer review the previous studies about LGBT views

and Logical Fallacy above. First, Donald P Haidel-Marker and Joslyn (2008).

Beliefs about the Origins of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights. Haidel

34
and Joslyn analyze about the origin of LGBT belief, the cause is controllable

(learned, environmental, or an individual choice) or uncontrollable ( biological or

genetic in origin). Second, Mrs. Laura A. Markowe (2002). A study of Lesbian

and Gay identity: European Perspectives. She analyzed perspectives on lesbian

and gay identity reflect an emphasis on thoroughly social understandings. Both of

this studies are talking about LGBT from its origin (biologically or formed) and

socially. The research focus on LGBT as the object, None of them talking about

LGBT views itself as the object especially in the argument aspect.

Other Studies talk about Logical Fallacies are Nirvan Ghovin (2015). The

Fallacy of Chinese. He analyzed how china government thinks that their ability

will make them as a superpower. But Ghovin tries to explain with his argument to

understanding how the limit of China’s rise avoids them to be a superpower. This

study is more focus how a good argument can prove a big power like China’s

government. The second one, So Young Shim (2011). Critical Thinking on a

Logical Fallacy. His focus his study on the analyze of ad hominem as part of the

logical fallacy on historical, logical, epistemological and linguistic

perspectives.besides, this study more focuses on ad hominem as the logical

fallacy. How ad hominem as a fallacy to attacking a person than their argument is

using in linguistics perspectives. Both of this study are talking about an argument

in the political and linguistic aspect but none of them talking about an argument in

social aspect especially in the LGBT views.

The studies that containing logical fallacy and LGBT views but not

containing the logical fallacy in LGBT’s argument are Rena M. Lindevaldsen

35
(2010). The Fallacy of Neutrality from Beginning to End: The Battle Between

Religious Liberties and Rights Based on Homosexual Conduct. The study

analyzed is focused on the homosexual context. How people can see the

homosexuality from the religion and social perspectives. The other studies are

Kevin Brandyon Quinn (2012). “Queering” The American Family: Belief,

Fallacy, and Myth. He analyzes how the homosexual fought their belief. How

they conduct and make their own family. Both of them talking about how logical

fallacies concept applies in the LGBT as the subject, one in religion aspect and

another one in family aspect. None of those studies talking about LGBT and

logical fallacies focus on its argument.

None of the previous studies above that analyze about LGBT views in

the argumentative aspect. Most of the researcher just analyze about LGBT views,

Logical Fallacy, and Logical Fallacy in the LGBT views but none of the research

above talk about Logical Fallacy in the LGBT views in terms of argumentative

aspect. Here, the writer tries to analyze and investigate LGBT views in terms of

argumentative aspect.

36
2.7 Conceptual Framework

Based on the previous studies and theoretical framework above, the

writer has a framework to describe how the theory works on the topic, as follows:

The logical fallacies in the argument

Argument in The Gay Archipelago (Tom Boellstorff’s
views)

Appeal to Appeal to Appeal to Appeal to Appeal to Appeal to
belief authority force emotion tradition self- interest

1. Describe Tom Boellstorff’s views in The Gay Archipelago book in

terms of logical fallacies.

2. Describe the dominant logical fallacies (fallacies of irrelevance

appeal) in The Gay Archipelago book

In the conceptual framework describe how the theory works in the topic

to answer the research question. First, the writer collects all of the data that

contain the logical fallacy. The data is from The Gay Archipelago book. Second,

the writer will apply the fallacies of irrelevant appeals theory in the data, finding

the most dominant logical fallacies and finally, it will answer the research

question above.

37
CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Method

This research method will use a descriptive qualitative method.

Qualitative research is concerned with developing explanations of social

phenomena (Hancock, 2009:7). The qualitative research focuses on how people or

groups of people have different ways of looking at reality. It helps us to

understand the social life in which we live and why things are the way they are.

A descriptive research is a kind of research using the techniques of

searching, collecting, classifying then analyzing the data (Surakhmad, 1994:131).

In brief, descriptive research helps us to analyze the data with searching,

collecting, classifying and analyzing the data. To make our research analysis

being easy, we need to follow the techniques above.

Qualitative descriptive studies generally are characterized by

simultaneous data collection and analysis (Hancock, 2009:2). The presentation of

data from a qualitative descriptive study involves a straightforward descriptive

summary of the informational contents of the data that is organized in a logical

manner.

From some views above, it can point out that in a qualitative research, to

get the answer from the research question above the writer should collect the data

and related with the argument concept. Here the writer should collect the data,

38
make a list of the LGBT views in Europe, United States, and Indonesia. After that,

the writer should relate the data with the code principle conduct (the relevance

principle) in the argument concept by using a deductive and inductive standard in

analyzing the argument.

3.2 Data and Sources of Data

Data is a representation of a fact that arranged in a structure (Vercellis,

2009:6). Data are all facts and numbers which can be made into materials to find

information, and source of data is the subject in which data can be obtained

(Arikunto, 1998:107). Data defines as a representation of fact which can be

represented as picture, graphic, words, number and etc.

3.2.1 Primary data are the first data that will be analyzed by the writer. The

primary data of this study was the argument of the author containing

some logical fallacy or break the rule of code intellectual conduct (the

relevance principle) in the Damer principle that are fallacious irrelevant

appeal (appeal to irrelevant authority, appeal to belief or appeal to

common opinion, appeal to force or threat, appeal to tradition, appeal to

self- interest, and appeal to emotion) which were obtained from the

source of data, “The Gay Archipelago” book and the argument of Tom

Boellstorff as the author.

39
3.3 Method of Collecting Data

In a qualitative research, an instrument of the research is the writer

herself with or without the help of other people (Moleong, 1990:17). The

instrument in research was equipment or facility used by the writer to collect the

data, so the research can be easier, and the results can be more accurate, complete

and systematic (Arikunto, 1998:151). However, in conduction, this research, the

writer herself need some supporting instruments. They were a book for reading

the argument and for finishing this research. In the other hand, the writer needed

The Gay Archipelago book by Tom Boellstorff for analyzing for making this

research easy understanding. The writer needs Attacking Faulty Reasoning books

by Professor T. Edward Damer that contain the logical fallacy concept.The writer

also needs some journals that containing arguments of the LGBT in the Europe

and the United States

In order to make this study runs in a chronological way, the

procedures taken up in this research were arranged as follows:

1. Choosing a Tom Boellstorff’s The Gay Archipelago book.

2. Reading the book “The Gay Archipelago” for several times in order to

understand the whole argument.

3. Collecting the data

 Taking the data from the argument in The Gay Archipelago book.

4. Finding out the fallacies of irrelevance appeal (appeal to belief, appeal to

emotion, appeal to self-interest, appeal to force or threat, appeal to

40
tradition and appeal to irrelevant authority) that contains in Tom

Boellstorff’s book The Gay Archipelago.

5. Finding out the dominant logical fallacies in The Gay Archipelago book.

6. Analyzing and interpreting the data to answer the research question.

7. Drawing conclusion from the results of the analysis and giving suggestions

In order to make easier the classification and analysis of the data in the

research, each data is marked by a code. The coding of data in this research can

be identified as follows:

 (1), (2), (3) and etc: refers to the number of data.

 Blue, green, purple, pink, orange and brown: refers to the logical fallacies

concept (fallacies of irrelevant appeal).

- Blue color: appeal to belief

- Green color: appeal to authority

- Puple color: appeal to tradition.

- Pink color: appeal to self-interest.

- Orange color: appeal to emotion

- Brown color: appeal to force.

 Deductive and inductive: refers to the standard form of the argument.

3.4 Techniques of Analyzing Data

The collecting data will analyze by using a descriptive method.

Descriptive method is a fact-finding with the correct interpretation. Descriptive

research is looking for problems in the society how the society behaves, including

41
relationships, activities, attitudes, views, and processes are ongoing and the effects

of a phenomenon (Whintney, 1960:22). The writer used the descriptive method in

order to find out the logical fallacy in The Gay Archipelago book from Tom

Boellstorff’s argument. There are some steps in analyzing and identifying data as

follows:

1. Classifying the data to find the argument that break the rule of Damer’s

code intellectual conduct principle (the relevance principle) consisting

fallacies of irrelevance appeal, namely, appeal to authority, appeal to

belief, appeal to force, appeal to self- interest, appeal to tradition, and

appeal to emotion in the book “The Gay Archipelago” by Tom

Boellstorff.

2. Analyzing and interpreting the data based on Damer’s logical fallacy

concept (fallacies of irrelevance appeal).

3. Reconstruct the argument that containing logical fallacies by using a

standard form of an argument.

4. Finding the dominant logical fallacies (fallacies of irrelevance appeal) in

The Gay Archipelago.

5. Drawing conclusions from the results of the analysis and giving

suggestions.

42
CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

4.1 FINDINGS

In this section, the writer will desrcibe the argument in The Gay

Archipelago book by Tom Boellstorff that consisting fallacies of irrelevance

appeal (appeal to belief, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, appeal to self-

interest, appeal to tradition and appeal to force). There are 97 arguments in The

Gay Archipelago book that containing the logical fallacies. But here the writer use

21 sample to explain the logical fallacies in The Gay Archipelago book. The data

consist of 5 arguments containing appeal to belief, 6 arguments containing appeal

to emotion, 4 arguments containing appeal to tradition, 3 arguments containing

appeal to authority, 2 arguments containing appeal self- interest and 1 arguments

containing appeal to force or threat. The following data will analyze by using

inductive and deductive standard of argument by Prof. Edward Damer, then

followed by interpreting the data based on the fallacies of irrelevance appeal.

4.1.1 Appeal To Belief

Appeal to belief is defines when some people believes in one argument

it should be the right argument whether the argument is true or not. Appeal to

belief that founds in The Gay Archipelago book are:

(1)“Here the cultural effects of globalization are thought to correlate with
class in a linear fashion: the richer you are, the more you are affected by
globalization, and thus the less authentic you are. The proletarian
becomes the new indigene” (Boellstorff, 2005:28)

43
The standard form of the argument above are:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 Here the cultural effects of globalization are thought to correlate

with class in a linear fashion

Premise 2 the richer you are, the more you are affected by globalization, and

thus the less authentic you are.

subpremise some people in Indonesia believe that the richer you are the more

you are affected by globalization, because the globalization

happen dominantly to the richer people and they less of authentic

Conclusion The proletarian becomes the new indigene

Data Interpretation

The argument above used an inductive standard form of argument and using blue

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is valid. The first

and second premises are true and followed by the true conclusion. But the

argument above is unsound. We can see that Tom according to most people in

Indonesia states that the richer you are the more you get globalization and the

proletarian in Indonesia reputed as the new indigine. In the fact, globalization is

not happen not only for the rich people. Globalization is the inhabitant process

that connected with the singular community to global community. Here,

globalization also happen to all of the people in Indonesia. All in all, we can not

say that the proletarian do net get the affect from the globalization. Tom’s view

44
above use apepal to belief in his argument. Because he belives what some people

believe without seeing the fact that happen.

(2) “When asked how she and Bonnie had sex, Jossie turned aside the
question by referring to mass media, saying "It's precisely like you have
seen in imported books” (Boellstorff, 2005:63)

The standard form of the argument above are:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 When asked how she and Bonnie had sex

Premise 2 Jossie turned aside the question by referring to mass media

Conclusion It's precisely like you have seen in imported books

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using blue

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is not valid and

obviously unsound. The first premise and the second premise are true, but the

conclusion is false. A good standard of argument is valid and sound. But both of

the characterization is not in the argument above. If Jossie says the way ho they

do sex it would be the argument because the conclussion following the true

premises. We can see from the argument above that when Tom asked Jossie to

explain how they do their sexuality, Jossie tries to explain the situation with

saying what some lesbian believes. They believed that to do ‘sex’, they can refers

to the mass media ( like another people do). The first thing that Jossie should

share the way how they do “sex” not talkimg about the lesbian people believes.

45
Here, tom believed what the lesbian says. Here, Tom use an appeal to belief to

makes his argument being accepted.

(3) “The author of a report on lesbi women written in the early 1990s
stated that "Ten years. Dubbing Culture after their marriage, the echo
from the wedding of this female homosexual couple still reverberates.
Their marriage is the only lesbian marriage to ever go proudly public in
Indonesia” (Boellstorff, 2005:64-65)

To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into a

standard form:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 The author of a report on lesbi women written in the early 1990s

stated that "Ten years dubbing Culture after their marriage

Premise 2 the echo from the wedding of this female homosexual couple still

reverberates

Conclusion their marriage is the only lesbian marriage to ever go proudly

public in Indonesia

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using blue

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is valid but

unsound. Both of the premises is following by the true conclusion. If we see the

argument for a while, the argument is sound. But if we have to see the another

side and fine the logical fallacy of the argument that make it unsound. From the

46
argument above we can see that the lesbian people proudly present their marriage

cause some people in Indonesia accept it. The echo of their marriage still

reverberates until now. Because they believed the echo of their marriage give

them a chance to go out from their hideaway and proudly present theirself as the

one who can be accepted by the society also. Here, Tom’s informant in this case

the lesbian use an appeal to belief to make their argument accepted.

(4) “This event is indeed unique, not least because it is the first time
something like this has occurred in Jakarta, maybe in Indonesia, or even
the whole worldthat the marriage of two people of the same sex is
formalized openly, without anything to co. It would have been no different
than a birthday party.” (Boellstorff, 2005:64)

To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into a

standard form:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 This event is indeed unique, not least because it is the first time

something like this has occurred in Jakarta, maybe in Indonesia,

or even the whole world that the marriage of two people of the

same sex is formalized openly, without anything to cover it

Premise 2 If the relationship by Jossie and Bonnie were tied together with

an ordinary reception in the presence of their peers, anyone could

have done it

Conclusion it would have been no different than a birthday party.

47
Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using blue

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. This argument is invalid. The first

premises are true but the conclusion that followed is false. Suddenly, Tom states

that the bithday party has the same condition with wedding party. If we see the

argument above we can see that Tom make the same comparison. He makes the

same condition between birthday party and wedding party. Birthday party is that

party to celebrated someone birthday at the day. While, wedding party is more

than this. Wedding party is the party to celebrated a couple promise in life. The

wedding party is sacred because they declare the promise of marriage, live

together till the die. The similarity between both of the party are attended with

their closer people, parents and another invitation. Here, Tom use an appeal to

belief to make his argument being accepted. He uses the belief of everyone to

make one statement that iw can be accepted because some people believe in that.

(5) “The article, entitled "I Indeed Embrace Devi Frequently," revolved
around accusations that Inneke was the lesbi lover of another actress,
Devi Permatasari: "To give the public certainty . . . [Devi] married [the
male actor] Candra Priatna. 'Society now has proof I'm not a lesbi
woman,' said Devi. But what about Inneke? For her the news of Devi's
marriage is already enough to disprove the gossip. 'What more proof do
you want. What's clear is that I'm a normal woman. (Boellstorff, 2005:64-
73)

48
The standard form of the argument above are:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 The article, entitled "I Indeed Embrace Devi Frequently,"

revolved around accusations that Inneke was the lesbi lover of

another actress

Premise 2 Devi Permatasari: "To give the public certainty [Devi] married

[the male actor] Candra Priatna. 'Society now has proof I'm not a

lesbi woman,' said Devi

Premise 3 But what about Inneke? For her the news of Devi's marriage is

already enough to disprove the gossip

Conclusion Therefore, Inneke said ‘what more proof do you want. What's

clear is that I'm a normal woman’

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using blue

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is invalid and

unsound. Premise 1,2 and 3 are true but the conclusionj is false. If Inneke said she

is a normal woman and will prove it, it will be the valid argument. But, we can see

from the argument above, Inneke shows to the society that she is not a lesbi by

saying Devi Pertamatasari has marriage with the man automatically Inneke is not

a lesbi cause her friend marriage with a man. If Inneke is a normal woman she

should prove it also. Like Devi, she should marriage with a man also to prove that

she is not lesbi and does not have attracted feeling to the same woman. In this

49
case, what Inneke and another lesbian think that they can be proved by the real

woman if one of them (a lesbian couple) married. Inneke as Tom’s informant use

an appeal to belief to state his argument.

4.1.2 Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to emotion is using the emotion of reader to make the argument

accepted. Appeal to emotion that founds in The Gay Archipelago book are:

(6) “The national motto of Indonesia is "unity in diversity," but
monolingual Indonesian speakers, like gay and lesbi Indonesians, do not
seem to have any "diversity," only unity. They appear improper”
(Boellstorff, 2005:20)

The standard form of the argument above are:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 The national motto of Indonesia is "unity in diversity

subpremise Unity and diversity’ should be apply for all of Indonesian

Premise 2 but monolingual Indonesian speakers, like gay and lesbi

Indonesians, do not seem to have any "diversity, only unity

Implicit premise they are gay and lesbi and they do not have the same

diversity as the other people in Indonesia, they just life in

Indonesia and just get an unity but not for diversity

conclusion Therefore, they are Indonesia but they appear improper in

Indonesia

50
Data Interpretation

The argument above used an inductive standard form of argument and using

orange as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above persuade

another people feelings to accept it. Tom as the writer use appeal to emotion to

persuade the reader to accept the argument. Tom use the pity of the reader to feel

the same condition with gay and lesbi. By using ‘unity and diversity’, Tom states

that gay and lesbi should have the same acceptance with another Indonesian

people. ‘unity and diversity’ means the difference of Indonesian ethnic should be

bridge by the unity. It is not applying in the Indonesian gender.

(7)“I hope to leave the reader with some sense of the great camaraderie,
joy, and creativity of the gay and lesbi worlds, but these are also worlds of
heartbreak and pain, and what the future holds for gay and lesbi
Indonesians remains uncertain. Therefore, I have gone to great lengths to
protect the confidentiality of my interlocutors. All names except for that of
Dede Oetomo are pseudonyms, and details of persons, places, and
situations have been altered” (Boellstorff, 2005:40)

To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into a

standard form:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 I hope to leave the reader with some sense of the great

camaraderie, joy, and creativity of the gay and lesbi worlds,

but these are also worlds of heartbreak and pain, and what

the future holds for gay and lesbi Indonesians remains

uncertain

51
subpremise He hopes we can see the pain of gay and lesbi

conclusion Therefore, I have gone to great lengths to protect the

confidentiality of my interlocutors. All names except for that

of Dede Oetomo are pseudonyms, and details of persons,

places, and situations have been altered

Data Interpretation

The argument above used an inductive standard form of argument and using

orange as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is valid but

unsound. From the argument above, we can see that Tom as a gay, to protect all of

his gay interlocutor he should hide their identity and using the reader feeling to

make his argument being accepted. He use the pain of gay and lesbi and he

persuade us to feel the same way. In this case, Tom use appeal to emotion fallacy

to states his argument.

(8) “I have occasionally heard gay men or warias talk about how society
should accept them because bissus or waroks have existed for hundreds of
years" (Boellstorff, 2005:45)

To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into a

standard form:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 I have occasionally heard gay men or warias talk about

how society should accept them

Implicit premises society is the only one place that Waria needs

52
conclusion Therefore,the society should accepted waria because

bissus or waroks have existed for hundreds of years

Data Interpretation

The argument above used an inductive standard form of argument and using

orange as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The premises are true and make

the argument valid. But, if we see the standard form of argument, it should be

have two characteristics. Valid and sound. The argument above is unsound. If

Tom explain how we can accepted waria in society it will the sound argument.

But, here Tom repeat his statement first and saying they are same with Bissu and

Warok. From the argument above we can see that Tom uses our emotion as the

reader to accepted the existence of Gay because Bissu and Wartok has the same

condition with the gay and they are accepted. Bissu and Warok is the tradition that

happen in Makassar society and being accepted at there. All in all we should

accepted the gay because they have the same condition with Bissu and Warok.

(9) “If someone's used to using a woman, he'll feel less happy or a lack of
desire if he uses a man ... I feel happy with men ... For that reason I've got
to habituate myself to it, because that's the best thing for me . . . In this
way God is indeed a generous being towards His creatures. For all bad
things on this earth He has provided weapons to turn them into something
good” (Boellstorff, 2005:50-51)

53
To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into a

standard form:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 If someone's used to using a woman, he'll feel less happy

or a lack of desire if he uses a man

Premise 2 I feel happy with men. For that reason I've got to

habituate myself to it, because that's the best thing for me

conclusion In this way God is indeed a generous being towards His

creatures. For all bad things on this earth He has provided

weapons to turn them into something good.

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using

orange as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The good argument should have

two characteristics. valid and sound. But the argument above not containing both

of them. The argument is invalid and unsound. The conclusion that following

those premises is not true. It makes the argument being invalid. If the argument is

invalid automatically the argument is unsound also. We can see from the

argument above that Tom is using the generous of the God to make his argument

being accepted. So, what is the corelation with the desire and the generous from

God. The desires that given from God to us is a normal desire. Man who have

desired with a woman and woman who have desired with a man. Gay who says

54
that God is the most generous because he gives both of the desire is totally wrong.

Here, Tom uses an appeal to emotion to make his argument accepted.

(10) “Globalization [globalisasi] came in, the mass media came in . . .
there were some Western gay magazines that were imported; they had
small parts of them summarized and translated into Indonesian so they
would sell here. These publications pushed people to be more open; they
would read them and realize that 'I'm not alone’” (Boellstorff, 2005:60)

Here the standard form of the argument above:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 Globalization [globalisasi] came in, the mass media came

in . . . there were some Western gay magazines that were

imported

Premise 2 they had small parts of them summarized and translated

into Indonesian so they would sell here

Conclusion Therefore, these publications pushed people to be more

open; they would read them and realize that 'I'm not

alone’

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using

orange as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The structure of the argument

above is valid but unsound. The conclusion following both of those premises and

it makes the argument being valid but it’s not unsound enough.We can see from

the argument above that Tom tries to convince the reader who maybe Gay that

55
they are not alone. By the mass media, the story of Gay life in the west come to

Indonesia and make the gay feel that they are not alone. Here, Tom uses an appeal

o emotion to make his argument being accepted and make the feeling of the

homosexuality be more protected because they are not alone.

(11) “The reporter underscored Jossie's unemployed status at the time of
the wedding a disgraceful position for a new head of household-and asked
Bonnie if her relationship with Jossie was based on emotion, sex, or love.
Bonnie replied, "We want to have an eternal love” (Boellstorff, 2005:63)

To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into a

standard form:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 The reporter underscored Jossie's unemployed status at

the time of the wedding a disgraceful position for a new

head of household

Premise 2 and asked Bonnie if her relationship with Jossie was

based on emotion, sex, or love

Conclusion Bonnie replied, "We want to have an eternal love

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using

orange as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is invalid

and unsound. It will be the good argument if Bonnie answer the question from the

reporter, how they family will live with Jossie’s unemployed status. If the

argument is invalid obviously the argument is unsound also. From the argument

56
above we cans ee that Bonnie as Tom’s informant says that the important thing in

their life is love. They want a true love. If we see in the real life for a new family

of the household Jossie should be has a job to give a life to the family. Bonnie to

make her argument accepted use an emotion, the eternal love. Whether she gives

the fact why she should maintain Jossie as the household. She prefer to choose

love as the main reason to make her argument being accepted.

4.1.3 Appeal to Tradition

Appeal to tradition is attemptinf to persuade other people byappealing to

their feelings of reverence or respect for a tradition to make their argument being

accepted. Appeal to tradition that founds in The Gay Archipelago book are:

(12)” Lesbi women have a hard time getting a job around here, especially
if they look masculine. It's hard for us to meet each other, find out about
each other, because women can't go out alone at night” (Boellstorff,
2005:31)

To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into a

standard form:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 Lesbi women have a hard time getting a job around here,

especially if they look masculine

Premise 2 It's hard for us to meet each other, find out about each

other

Conclusion So, women can't go out alone at night

57
Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using purple

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument is not good argument.

Both of those premises are not followed by the right conclusion. From the

argument above we can see that for woman in Indonesia its hard to out from their

home in the night because they are woman and woman should always stay in the

home. In indonesia tradition, home is the only one place to stay because its the

safety place for woman. For lesbian woman who behave like a man, its too hard to

get a work because for Indonesian people woman is they are who act like a real

woman, have a long hair or wearing hijab and take care with their nails. In this

case, Tom use appeal to tradition to make his argument being accepted.

(13) “Yet in "Makassarese culture" it is said that should a waria pass
under the threshold of one's home, forty days and forty nights of bad luck
will follow” (Boellstorff, 2005:42)

To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into a

standard form:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 Yet in "Makassarese culture" it is said that should a waria

pass under the threshold of one's home

Premise 2 Forty days and forty nights

Conclusion Therefore, bad luck will follow

58
Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using purple

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is valid. The

conclusion is following both of these premises. But it is not sound enough.

Because it is not because the argument is based from the tradition in Makassar

society and it should be the right one. But we should see the truth of the argument

first. From the argument above we can see that the tradition in Makassar state that

they are not accepting waria in their society. Waria in Makassar traditiom taking a

bad luck for the society. Waria gives them a bad thing and they want to allowed

waria to come to their society. All in all, we should believe what the makassar

tradition said because it is from the society to save them. Here, Tom uses appeal

to tradition in his argument.

(14) “on Bali homosexuality was not a matter for moral condemnation,
simply a pastime for young unmarried men” (Boellstorff, 2005:53)

To analyze the argument, we should reconstruct the argument above into standard

form.

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 on Bali homosexuality was not a matter for moral

condemnation

Conclusion it just simply a pastime for young unmarried men

59
Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using purple

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is not agood

argument enough. A good argument should have more than one premises to make

a conclusion. Absolutely, the argument is invalid and unsound. We can see from

the argument above that Tom is using appeal to tradition to make his argument

accepted. Bali tradition believes that homosexuality is an entertainment. An

entertainment is not a punishment. The young man who are not married yet can

have a sex with another man and they will not get a punishment. All in all, the

most important thing for the homosexuality is a satisfaction to the young man.

(15)“As the American anthropologist Jane Belo reported in February,
1939, sexuality between men did not constitute a violation of Balinese
tradition to be salah mekoerenan (wrongly married) entailed men's
relations with animals, with young girls who had not yet reached maturity,
or with higher-caste women. As a result, Belo wrote, the Balinese thought
that "the whole 'white caste' had gone stark raving mad” (Boellstorff,
2005:54)

The standard form of the argument above is:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 As the American anthropologist Jane Belo reported in

February, 1939, sexuality between men did not constitute

a violation of Balinese tradition

Implicit premise homosexuality is the usual activity for the Balinese

tradition at the time

Premise 2 If the soncition happen it should be salah mekoerenan

60
(wrongly married) entailed men's relations with animals,

with young girls who had not yet reached maturity, or

with higher-caste women

Conclusion Therefore, as a result, Belo wrote, the Balinese thought

that "the whole 'white caste' had gone stark raving mad

Data Interpretation

The argument above used an inductive standard form of argument and using

purple as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is valid.

But unsound enough. The conclusion in the argument is following both of the true

premises above. Belo as Tom’s informant should explain why homosexuality is

accepted in Balinesse society. We can see from the argument above that in Bali

society homosexuality is accepted, whereas, the relationship between animal, a

young girl who not married yet, or with woman who have the high level, those are

forbidden. Whether it is not forbidden for Bali tradition if a man has the sexual

relationship with another man. Here, Tom use an appeal to tradition by using Bali

tradition to make his argument and the existence of homosexuality are being

accepted.

4.1.4 Appeal to Authority

Appeal to authority is attempting to support an argument by appealing to

the judgment of on who is not an authority in the field. Appeal to authority that

founds in The Gay Archipelago book are:

61
(16) “We have been biologically designed not to be biologically designed,
to be ‘incomplete or unfinished animals who complete or finish ourselves
through culture and not through culture in general but through highly
particular forms of it’ (C. Geertz 1973:49”) (Boellstorff, 2005:10)

To analyze the argument, we should reconstruct the argument above into standard

form.

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 We have been biologically designed not to be biologically

designed

Premise 2 to be ‘incomplete or unfinished animals who complete or

finish ourselves through culture and not through culture in

general but through highly particular forms of it’

Conclusion Therefore, human biologically created as an incompleted

animal that finished ouselves through the culture

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using green

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is valid but

unsound enough. The premises are true and following by the true conclusion.

From the argument above we can see that one who states in Tom’s book named

C.Geertz. Clifford Geertz is an athropologist from United States. His famous

works is in the religion, economic,traditional politic structure and family life in

the village. His background education is anthropologist and social. He has no

backgorund in science, whether its biology. So, his argument above is notg

relevant with his authority. His authority is in the antropologist field not in the

62
biological field or the relationship between two of them. He has no an authority to

states the argument above. So, his argument is include in appeal to authority.

(17) “In the first letters, "DP" describes befriending another man who
showered DP with kindnesses and invited DP to spend the night in a hotel,
where he seduced DP. In the second, "WA" describes feeling aroused by
seeing men in tight pants or underwear. Both ask the columnist, "Am I
homoseksual?" The columnist replies "No" to both, because the first was
"receiving intensive sexual stimulation" and the second because "just
because he likes a handsome man does not indicate that WA is
homoseksual." Emphasizing the importance of conditioning, the columnist
warns DP never to repeat his experience with another man and WA to
avoid seeing men in their underwear, lest either become habituated to
homosexuality” (Boellstorff, 2005:74)

To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into standard

form.

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 In the first letters, "DP" describes befriending another

man who showered DP with kindnesses and invited DP to

spend the night in a hotel, where he seduced DP. In the

second, "WA" describes feeling aroused by seeing men in

tight pants or underwear

Premise 2 Both ask the columnist, "Am I homoseksual?" The

columnist replies "No" to both

Conclusion Therefore, the answer is because the first was "receiving

intensive sexual stimulation" and the second because "just

because he likes a handsome man does not indicate that

WA is homoseksual." Emphasizing the importance of

63
conditioning, the columnist warns DP never to repeat his

experience with another man and WA to avoid seeing men

in their underwear, lest either become habituated to

homosexualitas

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using green

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument is valid. The first and

second premises are true and following by the true conclusion but those are

unsound enough. From the argument above we can see that the gay in their letters

convey their gender status to a columnist. They are confuse whether they are gay

or not. In their case a columnist believes they are not gay because they get

"receiving intensive sexual stimulation” from the other man and the second reason

he just like the handsome man. Gay means they are who attracted to another man

physically and mentally. From the first case “DP” get stimulating from the

another man and he likes it. The second case “WA” like the man with a tight

pants. Actuyally, both of the cas eif we correlated it with the definition of gay

they are include in the gay also. But here, Tom use an appeal to authority to

makes his argument being accepted. By using a columnist, someone who always

writing in the mass media, Tom states that botb of those case is not including in

gay.

64
(18)“In most cases the references to homosexuality are negative-
psychologists presenting homosexuality as a pathology, crime exposes, or
disapproving gossip columns”. (Boellstorff, 2005:74)
To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into standard

form.

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 In most cases the references to homosexuality are

negative

Conclusion psychologists presenting homosexuality as a pathology,

crime exposes, or disapproving gossip columns.

Data Interpretation

The argument above used an inductive standard form of argument and using green

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is not good

enough based on the standard form of the argument. The argument is only consist

of one premise and following by the conclusion. A good argument should have at

least two premises and following by the conclusion. If the argument is not based

on the standard form of the argument it can be say that the argument also invalid

and unsound. the argument above also containing appeal to authority. Tom as the

writer of the book said that the physicology as the negative side states that

homosexuality is part of pathology. Pathology is a branch of medical science that

plays an important role in diagnosing the disease. The one who can states about

pathology is a doctor not a psychology.

65
4.1.5 Appeal to Self-Interest

Appeal to self-interest is attemmpting to accepting one argument by seeing

someone’s condition and position.

(19) “Yet this very irreducibility to ethnolocality marks the gay and
lesbi subject positions as failures: exceeding the state's own discourse of
national belonging, they can never have the "traditional" diversity that
represents the raw material to be unified by the archipelago concept.
However, while gay and lesbi Indonesians are marginal to the body
politic, in one sense their subject positions are a kind of distillation of
national discourse, an ultimate achievement of the national project. In
another sense, their presence challenges the state's own mode of
governmentality. The gay and lesbi subject positions do not participate in
the ethnolocalized logic of territoriality: they do not hope one day to have
an island of their own because they belong to the archipelago” ”.
(Boellstorff, 2005:210)

Here the standard form of the argument:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 Yet this very irreducibility to ethnolocality marks the gay

and lesbi subject positions as failures: exceeding the

state's own discourse of national belonging, they can

never have the "traditional" diversity that represents the

raw material to be unified by the archipelago concept.

Premise 2 However, while gay and lesbi Indonesians are marginal to

the body politic, in one sense their subject positions are a

kind of distillation of national discourse, an ultimate

achievement of the national project..

Conclusion In another sense, their presence challenges the state's own

mode of governmentality. The gay and lesbi subject

66
positions do not participate in the ethnolocalized logic of

territoriality: they do not hope one day to have an island

of their own because they belong to the archipelago

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using pink

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is valid argument

but not unsound enough. The conclusion is following the true of the premises. But

the argument above is not unsound enough because it is containing the logical

fallacy named appeal to self-interest. Tom as the writer tries convey his argument

with seeing the position of gay and lesbi. He states the gay and lesbi position is

challenge the government mode in the gender position. They make their own rule

and it make their nation position is marginalized. Tom states that even they are

marginalized they still Indonesia and have this nation also.

(20)” As Peter Jackson notes in the case of Thailand, homosexuality can
be seen to represent more of a danger to national society than
transgenderism, since transgenderism can be made to fit within a
heterosexist logic where those who desire men must be effeminate and
those who desire women must be masculine (Jackson 1999b:238).

Here the standard form of the argument:

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 As Peter Jackson notes in the case of Thailand,

homosexuality can be seen to represent more of a danger

to national society than transgenderism,.

67
Premise 2 since transgenderism can be made to fit within a

heterosexist logic

Conclusion where those who desire men must be effeminate and those

who desire women must be masculine

Data Interpretation

The argument above used a deductive standard form of argument and using pink

as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument above is valid because

the conclusion following the true premises both. But the argument above is

unsound, because it is containing the logical fallacies that is appeal to self-interest.

As we know that Thailand has many transgender. Transgenderism is accepting in

the Thailand but homosexuality is not. Their idea is a woman who has a desired

with man should be feminin and a man who has desired with a woman should be

masculin. Transgenderism in thailand change their body to following the rule.

Actually, the rules make us to think twice about trangender position in the nation.

We will think we have the same condition to be heterosexual and we will accept

them.

4.1.6 Appeal to Force or Threat

Appeal to force or threat is attempting to force the reader to accepted the

argument by using the position or the authority of the speaker.

(21) “As someone originally trained as a linguist, I find anxieties over
agency quite odd. I can, at will and as often as I please, create a well-
formed sentence never before produced in the history of the English
language- “(Boellstorff, 2005:6)

68
To analyze the argument above, we should reconstruct the argument into standard

form.

PREMISES THE ARGUMENT STRUCTURE

Premise 1 As someone originally trained as a linguist, I (Tom) find

anxieties over agency quite odd

Premise 2 I can, at will and as often as I please, create a well-formed

sentence never before produced in the history of the

English language

Implicit premise (because Tom trained as linguist, so Tom can create a

word that never existed in the English language before)

Conclusion Then, the authority of Tom as the linguist make a

possibility for him to create a new word in English

language.

Data Interpretation

The argument above used an inductive standard form of argument and using

brown as the code in The Gay Archipelago book. The argument is valid. The

conclusion is following both of the true premises. But this not a good argument

enough cause it unsound. According to Tom’s argument above, he believes that

his position as a linguist give him a possibility to create a new word in English

language. As we know that the creation of new language is not about an authority,

its about agreement reached. It means that its not about who you are but its about

69
what you have created and reached the agreement. All in all, Tom’s argument

above is included in appeal to force or threat. Because he use his position and

authority to make his argument being accepted.

4.2 DISCUSSION

At 1992, when Tom was 23 years old, he went to Indonesia for the first

time. He feels lucky cause he can meet and make a work with gay people in

Indonesia. Because of that, he always come to Indonesia to research gay people in

Indonesia. How they life and survive in the middle of the society. Tom need a

long time to make his research done. Tom when states his arguments can not

separate from the truth of the argument. The principle of truth argument is should

be valid and sound. The argument can be say as the valid and sound argument if it

is following the standard form of argument. In the relevance principle at the

Damer’s code of intellectual conduct it states that the argument should have the

good premises and following by the good conclusion also, and it can be said

following the rule in standard form of argument. Tom as the writer of The Gay

Archipelago, to make his argument being accpeted he should following the rule of

standard argument. Whether, Tom in his The Gay Archipelago has followed the

rule of making a good argument?

The discussion below deals with the logical fallacies (the fallacies of

irrelevance appeal) consist of appeal to belief, appeal to emotion, appeal to

tradition, appeal to authority, appeal to force or threat and appeal to self-interest

70
that find out in the data analysis (The Gay Archipelago book). The following

explanation below are findings from the data analysis.

4.2.1 Fallacies of Irrelevance Appeal in The Gay Archipelago book.

Sales

Appeal To Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Self Interest
Appeal to force or threat

Based on the analysis of appeal to belief, appeal to emotion, appeal to

tradition, appeal to authority, appeal to force or threat and appeal to self-interest in

The Gay Archipelago book, the data have been analyzed consists of 21 arguments

that containing appeal to belief, appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, appeal to

authority,appeal to force or threat and appeal to self-interest. There are 5

arguments that containing appeal to belief. This logical fallacies focuses on how

Tom as the author of book telling his statements based on what more people

believes. There are 6 arguments that containing appeal to emotion that focuses on

how Tom uses his statement to influence the emotion of the reader to accepted his

argument. Tom also uses his informant statements to make his argument stronger

and accepted by the reader. In The Gay Archipelago book, there are 4 arguments

71
that contain appeal to tradtion. Here, Tom uses the tradition belief in Indonesia to

make his argument accepted. He states just because the tradition of one society

believe in one thing we should believe in that also. There are 3 arguments that

containing appeal to authority in The Gay Archipelago book. Tom as the author of

the book shows many author who are not in their authority states the argument.

Whether their argument is true or not, Tom still use their argument to support his

book. There are 2 arguments that containing appeal to self-interest logical

fallacies in In The Gay Archipelago book. Tom as the writer make states some

position and condition to make us believe and accepting the argument and this

fallacy in the book shows how Tom use some people importance to make his

argument being accepted. And there is 1 arguments that containing appeal to

force or threat. Here as the author of the book, he feels he can do and say what he

want to make his argument being accepted because he has an authority to make

the statement.

4.2.2 The Dominant Logical Fallacies in The Gay Archipelago book

From the data analysis above we can see that the most dominant logical

fallacies in The Gay Archipelago book is appeal to emotion logical fallacies.

There are 6 arguments from 21 sample above that containing the appeal to

emotion. It can be state that most of the arguments in The Gay Archipelago book

by Tom Boellstorff is containing feelings to make the reader or hearer accepting

the argument. Tom in his most of the argument states that we should have the

same feeling with them to make we understand their position. Tom uses our pity

to makes we as the reader accepting the gay position in our society. Tom hopes

72
we can feel their pain as the marginalized subject position and their choice to be

gay is because of love. Love is a feeling that given by the God and they have the

same feeling of love with us. It makes them still convinced with they have

believed cause God is the only one who gives them this feeling and God is loving

them.

73
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 CONCLUSION

Based on the finding of research and discussing the problems statement

about fallacies of irrelevance appeal in Edward Damer’s logical fallacy, the writer

can conclude that on Damer’s fallacies of irrelevance appeal theory in The Gay

Archipelago book consist of 97 arguments that containing logical fallacy, but the

writer only takes 21 arguments that containing logical fallacies. From the sample

above the writer can see that how Tom Boellstorff as author of the book, he was

doing this research in a few years, become the volunteer and make the cooperation

with the LGBT community in Indonesia to help his research but most of his

argument still containing logical fallacy. Tom as the writer of The Gay

Archipelago book should be more attention with he had write because his works

become a reference to the other who interest with sexuality and Indonesia in this

case LGBT itself, the other researcher should be more pay attention to this case.

Tom in his research to make his argument should following the rule of standard

form argument to make his argument being valid and sound, and it will be

accepted. If the argument had accepted, he has a good argument and no one can

reject his statements. But, from The Gay Archipelago book the writer can found

97 arguments that containing logical fallacies and the argument is not good

enough.

The most dominant logical fallacies that is used in The Gay Archipelago

book is appeal to emotion. An appeal to emotion logical fallacy is attempting to

persuade the reader by using their feeling to make the argument being accepted.

74
Tom as the writer of this book believed that we should feel what the LGBT feels

so we can understand why they prefer to be a homosexual than heterosexual. He

state that if we have the same feeling with LGBT we can understand and

accepting their choice.

5.2 SUGGESTION

In the research of logical fallacies by Edward Damer in The Gay

Archipelago book the writer only focuses on fallacies of irrelevance appeal that

consist of appeal to belief, appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, appeal to

authority, appeal to self-interest and appeal to force or threat. This research is a

small portion of the logical fallacy theory by Edward Damer. Therefore, the first

suggest from the writer to the next writer is to find the another logical fallacies in

The Gay Archipelago book. The writer suggests to take fallacies of irrelevnce

premises consist of genetic fallacy, rationalization, drawing the wrong conclusion

and using the wrong reason to the other writer who are interest witb this research

object.

The second suggestion is the writer hopes another writer can find the

influence of mass media from the other country to the LGBT in Indonesia.

Because there are a lot of arguments that conveys by Tom Boellstorff states that

LGBT in Indonesia get some influences from the mass media especially from the

magazine and television. They get influence from the mass media and feel they

are not alone.

The third suggestion is the writer hopes another writer can find a

correlation between the ideology of LGBT Europe, LGBT in the United States

75
and LGBT in Indonesia. Because most informants that Tom uses in his book is

from Europe and The United States. And he gets his identoty as a gay when he

cooperates with the LGBT community in The United States.

The writer hopes another writer can find another interesting object from

literary works like movie, music, novel and etc to enriching the discourse analysis

study.

76